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."
great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice (Score:0, Interesting)
Positive step (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks, Ubuntu. (Score:5, Interesting)
Changing to Linux is now something I'm thinking about on at least a weekly basis, and the upcoming version Ubuntu seems very likely to make me leave Windows. (Except for a small gaming partition).
Nice (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that is more a problem of perception. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that that is the case ONLY because those people are coming from a Windows background.
Personally, I find it far, Far, FAR, FAR easier to recover a damaged Linux box than a damaged Windows box. But that is primarily because the damaged Windows boxes that I get have major Registry issues.
As long as you can get an Ubuntu box to boot to the command line, it is "easy" to fix. "Easy" is in quotes because it takes a little bit of knowledge. But not much. I'm running Gutsy Gibbon at home and even with 2 problems (it is still alpha) I've been able to recover my system without rebooting in less than 5 minutes.
The magic is in APT and the repositories. As long as I can connect to the repositories and run APT, I can remove the problem or re-install over it.
As more people become familiar with Ubuntu (and Debian and Debian-based distributions) the "fear" of Linux will vanish. It's just so much EASIER than Windows. (unless your hardware isn't supported but that's a different issue)
Re:This is the sort of thing OS needs to focus on (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been using Linux since MkLinux zero-point-something, and when I had to update a Gentoo box from XFree to X.org, my old conf file didn't work and xconfigurator (or whichever one the command-line tool is called) didn't generate a working file. Eventually it turned out that a serial mouse isn't supported, and switching to a USB mouse allowed a working conf file to be generated that I could then tweak. I never did get the beloved old mouse working.
So anything that improves the X configuration process is a very welcome improvement over calling users names when the crappy old tools don't work.
Re:Nice (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that would merit it would be a fundamental change to the rendering model necessitating a core protocol change, and really, X's rendering model is quite reasonable (though individual implementations are sometimes lacking in implementation terms in some areas - X.org (and XFree86 before it) have shockingly slow nested subwindow support, for no good reason- in the end, people like Trolltech (Qt) have made a decision, and moved away from subwindows, because it's faster for them to emulate them than use native subwindows. Which is pretty dumb, since X had subwindows specifically to make toolkit implementors lives mh easier (then again, MacOSX native GUI doesn't support native subwindows, and Qt being crossplatform they had to implement an emulation anyway). But you don't need to change the protocol to improve that, just fix X.org to Not Suck).
I suggested this ages ago! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I suggested this ages ago! (Score:4, Interesting)
The problems occur when you do something as simple as move the graphics card to a different slot after installation. X is not smart enough to figure out that it just needs to substitute a different PCI bus ID.
Re:I think that is more a problem of perception. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, I can't let that go.
Yes Mandrake was the first user-friendly distro, but they messed up several times.
1) Adverts in the installer
2) All the
3) Sacking of Gael Duval was the final straw. It shows the mentality of a lost management team.
Ubuntu has filled the gap left by where Mandrake could have been and Mandriva is.
Re:This is the sort of thing OS needs to focus on (Score:3, Interesting)
I've only had to format/reinstall 2 windows boxes. The first was because it had accumulated quite a few registry errors (main user, me, had installed a lot of important software with the 'only for me' box checked, then deleted his account when passing it to another person) and the work to fix the problem, while relatively minor and doable at run-time, was beyond the new user so it was simply to simply start with a fresh install. The second was because the computer had gathered a lot of useless software, not spyware, but installed software that didn't come with an easy uninstaller (I'd call them trojans, but most of it is made by big name companies who simply don't expect you to want to uninstall their software).
I have yet to encounter a problem serious enough that my first response is 'format it', that's always the option sitting in the background that'll fix the problem quickly and simply, but which is still treated as a last result.
Honestly, if you believe Windows users are format-reinstalling all the time then you have a very distorted view of windows...or I do. Since I use windows as my primary OS (considering Linux right now actually, a few tabs open with info on the different distros) as does my entire family (5 computers, 3 laptops) and I've worked volunteer and part-time at a school district with at least 1 computer in every room, a couple of campuses, and many labs, I'd say my view of what's required to fix windows isn't the off one. I remember a great old computer, principal's PC, of course, which McAfee found and deleted over 1000 viruses (and I only wish I was exaggerating) and AdAware/Spybot/Microsoft Anti-spyware all picked up items, even when run one after the other. After about 3 hours work, only 10 minutes spent at the computer, it was done and the computer was back to where it was before, no viruses or anything picked up (of course there could have been 1 or 2 left over dodging us, but the battery of testing software we threw at that one, knowing it would be horrible, made that less likely). Suffice it to say, despite over 1000 viruses, the computer never required reformatting and worked great after a little fixing.
This is new? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure its nice, but doesnt seem 'earth shaking'
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:3, Interesting)
How many Linux users do you think do anything without loading a GUI on their userspace system?
Linux for Old Ladies (Score:2, Interesting)
Seeing the positive effect Ubuntu has had in spreading more mainstream use of linux, I've changed my ways. This is just another step further in helping more people to step away from Windows and discover something better. I agree that X11 problems account for the majority of failed end-user attempts at trying linux out.
Since Feisty came out, I've been able to quickly install a GNU/Linux distro on several machines (family members, friends) and have them up and running, and the users happily working on a friendly OS. All of them have stayed with Ubuntu. No Ubuntu/XP dual booting, just straight up scrapping Windows and going full ahead with Ubuntu. Most of them (my wife included) have said "I will never go back to Windows again".
Every time a user says "I will never go back to Windows again", an angel gets its wings.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a certified Linux admin. I'm one of "today's linux users".
I am not afraid of the command line. All my servers are installed without an X server.
What I am afraid of is a cryptic "no screens found" error from xorg. This happens way too often.
When you install display drivers, this can happen despite seemingly doing everything right.
I'm stunned it took this long to get failsafe X server support.
It doesn't look that good.. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) You're running an x86 PC with a VESA compliant graphics card, or any platform which has 'legacy VGA' registers mapped. What about PPC or something? It's frighteningly rare for the kernel framebuffer not to work on these platforms but there are some times where the X.org driver/autodetect or most commonly GDM doesn't quite configure your card correctly and hands you a garbage display. I never understood why X.org can't have a TRUE framebuffer console driver which simply inherits the mode the kernel gives it.
This isn't bulletproof it's just a band-aid.
2) Everyone loves GTK+ - well, I pretty much don't. Does this mean the Kubuntu guys have to install GTK now? Actually not, because there is a cute KDE app for it, but seriously.. why does everyone fawn over the GTK stuff and never show the Qt stuff?
In fact, it turns out this was a KDE app to start with. Quote;
Which just begs the question, why wasn't this news when the KDE app got written?
3) Everyone loves GDM, well, I don't. What's up with KDM these days? Does it handle it better? None of the developers are telling the success story on any project I'm watching right now, it's all "GDM breaks this" and "we have problems with that". So it worked on KDE before, but nobody thought to say "this is a great feature, now we port it to GTK"?
There are some very strange priorities in the software world these days.. bug reports flood the net and nobody talks about anything being finished..
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I think that is more a problem of perception. (Score:3, Interesting)
In Windows you get very-obvious tools which may or may not help you figure out what the problem is and very-obvious tools which will probably *not* get the problem fixed. The problem is too hard to solve most of the time for an average user.
In Linux you get no few clues as to what went wrong and no clues as to what tools are available to help. But, if you are able to figure out both of those things, recovery is usually very easy. The problem is *still* too hard for the average user, but not because it's hard to do.
The Linux problem is not one of hard-to-use but one of hard-to-discover. Most idiots could use apt-get on the command line to fix problems, *if* they had any clue that doing so would help and *if* they knew what the options were. Most idiots could *not* correct registry problems even if they knew how to open up regedit.
Re:It is a problem of perception. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say the important part is that when something goes wrong with a Unix system, it CAN be fixed, AT ALL.
It's not some anecdote that Windows users have to reinstall all the time... There really is no other way to fix serious problems in Windows. Even after 10 years of experience, and extensive knowledge of Windows, there are still regular fuck-ups with Windows that I and anyone else can't possibly fix.
Maybe it's some driver that refuses to uninstall, so much so that even removing all references to it in the registry, and all (text) files across the entire filesystem, still doesn't remove or disable. Maybe it's some of the registry hives getting so unbelievably corrupted that you can't delete, add, replace entries anymore. Maybe it's some system file that gets corrupted, and the original from disc is entirely incompatible because of updates, etc., etc. With a Unix system, there is no problem that can't be fixed. With Windows, even after all these years, there are still a huge number that force restoring the FULL system from backup, or often completely reinstalling.
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". (Score:3, Interesting)