On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:40 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote: > Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On 9/2/07, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> To me, that seems like it might be enough. The fact that ubuntu is > >> investing so much energy in this, makes me suggest that there might be > >> something to it. > > > > We've no idea how much "energy" Ubuntu is investing in this. We do > > know they are re-using code available in hwdata as seen in rhl/fedora. > > > Cmon man. The fact that you see so much press about 'bulletproof-x' > does give you "an idea" about how much "energy" ubuntu is investing in this. > > No, it doesn't tell you $1k, or $5k, or $250k, but it does tell you > something. > > > > > >> Which sounds really stupid to me. It sounds like a trivial thing to me, > >> to modify X so that it doesn't exclusively prefer width over height, > >> resulting in the "hilarious situation" described. > > > >> Honestly it doesn't sound very hard at all to modify X so that it > >> understands that 1600x1200 is more preferable than 1680x1050. > > > > Go back and read what Mr. Jackson wrote..again...specifically the > > on-going work concerning using the maximum pixel clock setting to > > discriminate modes. > > Why? > > Is there something in there describing how that work can automagically > recreate the information that cannot be retrieved from a 'broken' edid > hardware implementation, in which the data in the inf is correct? Going > beyond 'speculation', I did a little googling, and found these two > posts, which seem to suggest that the situation Olivier Galibert > described, and which I have speculated, is a real scenario- > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/xorg/2005-October/010716.html > > http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83575 > > Again, I don't claim to be an X hacker, but it sounds like there are > legitimate situations in which there is *NO* way for the X driver to > autodetect the monitor specs, while *AT THE SAME TIME* it is possible to > get useful information from inf files. > > Again, I could be wrong, but I really do think your telling me to STFU > was uncalled for. > > > > > >> With that improvement, going only by my speculation, and the > >> indisputable opinions/facts provided by Mr Jackson, I suspect there is > >> room for value in the ubuntu-bulletproof-x method. > > > > Or perhaps there's none at all, and the work being done to expose inf > > file reading is a dead-end. Until we have a specific example inf file > > situation to discuss, it's impossible to go any further in this > > discussion. In any event I look forward to seeing Ubuntu supplied > > patches to Xorg to "fix" X so that we can all benefit from better > > hardware detection. > > > And perhaps, if fedora actually respected ubuntu, and kept up with their > advances, rather than exclusively playing catch up, they wouldn't be > having their asses handed to them. > > Yes, I know redhat has learned well from microsoft, that the way to be > successful is to let others do the expensive trailblazing, and then only > copy the trails that led to success, rather than those that led to > failure. I have no problem with that attitude, I think it is > intelligent. But please, this is just a mailinglist where people > routinely talk about blowing goats. So don't tell me to STFU like the > rest of the people on this list can't handle the signal/noise ratio. > You obviously don't know much about Ubuntu's development model or where most of their innovations actually come from, yes there is a problem here with Fedora, but it isn't the problem you think it is... Dave. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
