New Failsafe Graphics Mode For Ubuntu 505
ianare sends us to Ars Technica for news of the Ubuntu Xorg BulletProof-X feature, coming soon to a 7.10 (Gutsy) build near you. "It provides a failsafe mode that will ensure that users never have to manually configure their graphics hardware settings from the command line. If Xorg fails to start,the failsafe mode will initiate with minimalistic settings, low resolution, and a limited number of colors. The failsafe mode also automatically runs Ubuntu's new GTK-based display configuration utility so that users can easily test various display settings and choose a configuration that will work properly with their hardware."
This is the sort of thing OS needs to focus on (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst to the average Slashdotter this may sound silly, I'd bet it's one of the biggest things that puts your average Joe off Linux through the years. Being able to easier recover from broken Linux installs will, imo go a long way to keeping people using Linux rather than the current situation where quite a few try, but many give up. Linux is generally nice and stable, but when it does go wrong, to most people it's just far, far too hard to recover your installation back into a working state - much more so than, dare I say it, Windows. This is however why I'd say Ubuntu has been making such headway in attracting new users to Linux because they do seem to understand what problems exactly that up until now have been putting many new users off Linux.
Re:Oooooooh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Very good (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember that back in the day YaST (SuSE's Yet Another Setup Tool) used to be incredibly handy because the CLI and GUI for the tool, which controlled almost all configurable options of the Linux distro, would behave almost exactly the same. The CLI used curses for display, and I believe the GUI was QT-based. They functioned pretty much identically. Personally, I have no problem just editing a text file. But, if you are a linux newbie and you poke around in the GUI and mess something up, then suddenly you can't start X, you feel a little bit safer knowing that there's a tool you can use to revert your settings that works exactly the same on the CLI as it does in the GUI, so you can access the program in almost any situation, even from a remote terminal.
Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more "easy GUI re-configuration of X.org when X.org blows up".
Well
Re:Thanks, Ubuntu. (Score:0, Insightful)
You should always have a separate home partition, and when you need to edit your
have fun
email me if you want, by the way, if you have any questions.
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:great! (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I don't do post-burn checks, then the disc will be a bad burn? How odd...
Re:This is the sort of thing OS needs to focus on (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Positive step (Score:2, Insightful)
Not due to running a particular operating system anyway. Interestingly, most of those who have a right to smugness and superiority are probably running Linux. That is, most who have a great enough intellect that they SHOULD feel superior to the idiotic conformist cattle that comprises the general population.
This is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my kitchen is a laptop. It's running Ubuntu. It's the machine my non-techy wife uses. She has been using linux since 2002 and I would guess she represents a "typical" user. Present her with a GUI, dialog boxes, a clear and user friendly interface and she's fine; put her in front of a shell prompt and she's lost.
Features like this "Failsafe Graphics Mode" are critical if we expect more widespread adoption of linux. This is where Microsoft and Apple have done a very good job of making it easy for a typical person with limited or no technical background to configure and use the machines. A previous poster suggested that linux has always had a failsafe mode; but, booting into single user mode and dumping someone at a shell prompt is not good enough. At that point most people would give up. We have to work to make the platform as user friendly as possible if we expect it to be adopted. linux needs more of these user friendly interfaces for diagnosing problems and configuring hardware. That laptop my wife uses, in order to get the wifi interface to work I had to drop back to a command prompt to troubleshoot the problem, then edit a couple of configuration files to make it work. (and for the record, it's a Ralink 2500 based card made by Asus, which is supposed to be well supported) That's just unacceptable to most users. Let's try to keep the typical end user in mind when we design these projects. I think the folks working on Ubuntu are setting a fine example.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:5, Insightful)
A command line driven OS is, to 99.999% of humanity, not an operating system. The OS is the metaphor. Dropping into a text-based mode might as well be powering down. In fact it's almost certainly worse, from a user's perspective - more confronting, confusing and frustrating.
It does no good to tell my Mom or my non-tech friend "Don't worry, your operating system is fine, it's just the GUI." They likely blew something up using the GUI. Trying to find which text file to edit, and how to edit text files, and how to navigate directories, all with a CLI, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. If I break it in GUI, I need to be able to fix it in GUI, or it won't get fixed.
Stop being a part of the problem here. If X doesn't work, the OS is broken. This is a major improvement in Ubuntu overall, not just some minor fix to X.
Re:I think that is more a problem of perception. (Score:2, Insightful)
This mentality that "users just need to get used to Linux, and drop their Windows attitude" will simply not fly. Who (apart from some smart-asses here) has been raised solely on *nix boxes their whole life? We have all had to use Windows or Macs at some point! While they aren't the 'perfect' UI, they are the predominant one. A parallel could be brought up about car design and interface; many concept vehicles completely redesign how a driver uses the vehicle, yet the mainstream isn't willing to change the old and understood for someone's idea of 'better'.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole discussion is word play. For some people (most people on Slashdot) "operating system" means the kernel only. For others it's the "kernel + basic system utilities and user interface" package.
So you're right in the second sense, but that doesn't mean the other people here are wrong. They just mean a different thing when they say "operating system" (and with reason, since I can perfectly run something other than X over the Linux kernel as a user interface). This is established usage in the computing world (I would dispute your 99.999% figure, but oh well, 99.999% of all statistics are made up...) Learn to appreciate the difference.
Welcome to the 90's (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Useless (Score:3, Insightful)
I do it all the time. I never even noticed, since the binary drivers and their kernel modules get upgraded along with the kernel itself with the upgrade manager.
Oh unless you are talking about compiling your own kernel, then you will have to recompile the nvidia kernel module... Of course, if you want to compile your own kernel, then you can surely live with the consequences. For everyone else, there's no issue, since the update manager updates the kernel and the only thing the user needs to do it reboot afterwards
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:3, Insightful)
In terms of modern computing from the aspect of the average end user, the OS is OS + GUI + basic applications, period. Not only that, but continuing to ignore this simple fact marginalizes Linux, especially since most college age computer users have never used a PC without a mouse and GUI, ever. Meeting basic user expectations in terms of usability only helps the so-called legitimacy of your distro in comparison to the other major desktop OSes.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:2, Insightful)
The killer for me was "ergonomic" refresh rates. (Score:2, Insightful)
The graphical installers ALWAYS try to use an ergonomic refresh rate
that drive my old Genuine IBM VGA monitors bananas.
The installer should be written for 640x480, 60 Hz, PERIOD.
And authors of said installers should test them at 640x480.
There's nothing that makes me want to microwave an Ubuntu CD faster
than a dialog box with the buttons off the bottom of the screen.
--Gene
It is a problem of perception. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that that is the case ONLY because those people are coming from a Windows background.
And the problem with your perception is that you think that the linux command line mentality is better for the average joe user. I don't disagree that if you know what you're doing, it is much easier to fix a broken Linux than it is to fix a broken Windows. But the key here is that most people don't know what they're doing. Parts of the design of Windows are aimed at users that don't know what they're doing so that their PC will at least be somewhat functional for them with all of the familiar interfaces even if something bad happens.
You see, the command line or text messages with a black background mean nothing to the user. For all purposes, if they don't see something that resembles their desktop, they think their computer is broken. They also don't care if they have to type in one command to fix it because to them, learning that the command line exists and that you can even enter text commands is too much to deal with. If you can't expect failure in your software and implement necessary messages and functionality to recover to a close but not quite mode expected by the user, it doesn't mean a damn thing because they will end up calling the nearest geek to fix it. And when they do that, it doesn't matter how long it takes you to fix or even if you can't fix it. They've already lost time waiting for your service and your service is only seen as a backup effort. If geeks were not available, they probably would have considered their computer broken and the only way to fix it would be to purchase a new one.
The people at Ubuntu are doing more for linux and open source software adoption than anyone else has. Take a hint and learn something about understanding other (non-techy) user's viewpoints. If all open source developers could actually understand those users, then linux might eventually be ready for the desktop.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't. I work at a surplus computer store, and people come in wanting a "hard drive". Like 3/4ths want a hard drive, the other 1/4th.. it is either the machine proper, the monitor, or in a few odd cases the printer. That doesn't mean I should just start calling everything the hard drive -- it's wrong terminology. Calling a big mass of crap the OS is also wrong. The people saying X isn't part of the OS are flat out right; they aren't arguing that making X easier to setup is bad.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is, that Windows does NOT exist without the GUI and Linux does.
Re:The killer for me was "ergonomic" refresh rates (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, if they still work, save them in your cellar! They will soon be collectors items and you can make a fortune!
But if you are trying to work with them, it's obvious that the only reason you don't microwave your install CD is that you are so cheap you make Scrooge look lavish. I can spend $5-$10 at the local thrift store to get SVGA, 1280x1024 monitors, 15 inch. If you're still using IBM VGA monitors and you expect everything else to work on them, you are [unrealistic/indescribable/retarded/virgin].
Re:Useless (Score:3, Insightful)
You're so right. After all, Apple's use of non-standard interfaces like PCI, USB, FireWire, AGP and others means that Apple can easily account for anything you've plugged into your Mac. There's only a couple of possible options for PCI slots, surely?
Well, I'm not really talking about hardware interfaces in and of themselves, but I'll skip your bitterly sarcastic tone and respond just the same: In terms of what's made to be Mac compatible? Yes, absolutely. You're *not* going to find people trying to make hardware without well-crafted and extensively tested drivers for the platform in question plug random pieces in and expect them to work flawlessly when it comes to the Mac. You *are* going to find people doing such with hardware they already have and/or works under some other OS doing such with the free *nix-style OSes. Couple this with the fact that the majority of Macs sold these days are *not* easy-to-upgrade towers, but compact all-in-ones, and the chances of some piece of hardware not getting properly detected on installation or post-software-upgrade becomes slim indeed.Re:WHEN will we be rid of you? (Score:2, Insightful)
but we have to put up with you and your kind, who has never run a protein gel, read a DNA sequence, or solved a single biological problem of even the remotest significance for the good of humanity in the slightest inconsequential way; preaching the Gospel of how your Body works by your definitions spawned from everything you could glean from the National Enquirer and the Maury Povich show and the view out of the window of your single-wide mobile home, and delivered as if you were James Fucking Watson.
Speaking for 99.99999999 of humanity, go conduct a poll to back up those numbers and then get back to us, junior!
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope. It is easier. (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, what's 'foo'? There's no point in Grandma Josephine writing that down on her 3x5. What's the actual command?
Are you really so arrogant that you assume that the kind of user who's likely to bork their GUI and not know how to fix it from the command line also has a spare machine sitting right there where they can Google a solution?
Even if they do, according to you, the solution is "apt-get install --reinstall foo". Would you care to take this opportunity to provide one that might actually work, or are you more interested in demonstrating that you could do so, if it was in your idiom to actually help people rather than to just demonstrate your smug superiority?
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they didn't, but we really aren't dealing with the same userbase. The number of computer users back then is significantly smaller and more computer savvy than the computer users of today.
Just because people don't know something doesn't mean they can't learn btw. Learning is good.
Well, if you don't want more people using linux, then force them to learn the command line. Seriously, the average computer user doesn't even have a clue (nor do they care) what the "black box with white letters" (i.e., a MSDOS prompt window) is, what it is for, or why they need it.
The vast majority of linux systems don't have X installed btw. They don't even have monitors or keyboards.
We are not talking about servers. That is a completely different (and significantly more knowledgeable) userbase. We are talking about desktop computers that "normal" people (i.e., people that don't eat, sleep, and dream about computers) will be using on a daily basis.
Most of the most advanced software for the platform does not require X at all.
Regardless of how advanced a piece of software is, if it doesn't run in a window or have an icon they can click on, then it does not exist to "normal" people.
It is attitudes like this that hold back the wide-spread adoption of Linux on the desktop.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:4, Insightful)
Please learn what an operating system is. You don't know what you are talking about. The machine is functional without a GUI. You can do nearly everything without a GUI that you can do with a GUI. Some things are even substantially faster at the command line.
If you believe a command-line shell can be considered part of the "operating system", you have zero grounds for saying a graphical shell is not. They are merely different implementations of the same concept.
Why do we even have xorg.conf anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)
Today my xorg.conf contains:
Paths to fonts (could be autodetected or stored in a standard font configuration, at second though, isn't there some other font configuration file already?)
Basic mouse and keyboard settings (could be set to a default inside X.org)
Screen and graphics card settings (Basically a name for both and some settings for nvidia)
Touchpad options
Modules to load (could be done dynamically)
that's simply the touchpad, nvidia and keyboard layout options that are important. Keyboard layout could be shared with the rest of the system (my console knows my keyboard layout, why is it then in xorg.conf?). The nvidia driver could store it's own settings and likewise the touchpad (oh, and user specific mouse settings please?). xorg.conf could exist only to override what you specifically didn't want as the autodetected values and a cached version of the autodetected values could be stored to speed up boot if no parameters changed. And please, give me live updating of these settings, restarting X is tiresome.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:5, Insightful)
To which users? Linux is strongest in the server room/data center. Why would you bother with running X on your db server when you can just ssh in and use GUI tools from a desktop that is running X? That desktop might even be a Windows box running cygwin/Xorg. X is not Linux, and Linux is not X.