Doing an local NFS install from a mirrored rawhide tree went without a hitch this morning. All the artwork seem to be there and looking good. The background picture during the rhgb seemed to be a little small (should it be wider or something?) but looked fine.
Post install, when running system-config-display the modes and such didn't get inserted into my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, but selecting the correct monitor did. I have a copy of a good xorg.conf file I keep as backup and use it.
Haven't had a chance to see how evolution does with the no highlighting after an email is deleted, so will try to check that again here soon as a few emails get here.
Otherwise, the isnstall went good and everything seems to be working OK.
On Sunday 10 September 2006 10:44, Mike Chambers wrote:
Post install, when running system-config-display the modes and such didn't get inserted into my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, but selecting the correct monitor did. I have a copy of a good xorg.conf file I keep as backup and use it.
xorg.conf is supposed to be dead minimal. It figures things out by probing the monitor and video card. It will choose the highest agreeable resolution to use. You can override with a personal (IE per user) preference for resolution using System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution.
Your X should Just Work with very minimal content in xorg.conf. Please file a bug with your monitor and video card information if this is not working for you.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:59:02AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
xorg.conf is supposed to be dead minimal. It figures things out by probing the monitor and video card. It will choose the highest agreeable resolution to use. You can override with a personal (IE per user) preference for resolution using System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution.
Unfortunately this is based upon a set of bogus suppositions.
Your X should Just Work with very minimal content in xorg.conf. Please file a bug with your monitor and video card information if this is not working for you.
It doesn't (not because of X but due to the display), and system-config-display doesn't let me set the resolution so the end result is that gdm isn't usable and this isn't fixable.
And the bugs about system-config-display are filed, have been for a while. Once they get fixed so you can set the gdm mode then I agree the personal preferences for modes will be great.
Alan
On 9/10/06, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:59:02AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
xorg.conf is supposed to be dead minimal. It figures things out by
probing
the monitor and video card. It will choose the highest agreeable
resolution
to use. You can override with a personal (IE per user) preference for resolution using System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution.
Unfortunately this is based upon a set of bogus suppositions.
Your X should Just Work with very minimal content in xorg.conf. Please
file a
bug with your monitor and video card information if this is not working
for
you.
It doesn't (not because of X but due to the display), and system-config-display doesn't let me set the resolution so the end result is that gdm isn't usable and this isn't fixable.
And the bugs about system-config-display are filed, have been for a while. Once they get fixed so you can set the gdm mode then I agree the personal preferences for modes will be great.
Alan
--
I just want "xorgconfig" back so I can do things manually if I so desire.
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 13:04 -0500, Justin Conover wrote:
On 9/10/06, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:59:02AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > xorg.conf is supposed to be dead minimal. It figures things out by probing > the monitor and video card. It will choose the highest agreeable resolution > to use. You can override with a personal (IE per user) preference for > resolution using System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution.
Unfortunately this is based upon a set of bogus suppositions. > Your X should Just Work with very minimal content in xorg.conf. Please file a > bug with your monitor and video card information if this is not working for > you. It doesn't (not because of X but due to the display), and system-config-display doesn't let me set the resolution so the end result is that gdm isn't usable and this isn't fixable. And the bugs about system-config-display are filed, have been for a while. Once they get fixed so you can set the gdm mode then I agree the personal preferences for modes will be great. Alan --I just want "xorgconfig" back so I can do things manually if I so desire.
Sounds like this is going to need to be in the Release Notes.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I just want "xorgconfig" back so I can do things manually if I so desire.
Sounds like this is going to need to be in the Release Notes.
I disagree. If you have to add it the release notes then the interface is wrong. It needs *FIXING*.
Alan
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 17:56 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I just want "xorgconfig" back so I can do things manually if I so desire.
Sounds like this is going to need to be in the Release Notes.
I disagree. If you have to add it the release notes then the interface is wrong. It needs *FIXING*.
The two are not mutually exclusive. AIUI this is a major upstream decision, and given the stated project goals of riding closely thereto, I wonder if such a fix will be forthcoming.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 17:56 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I just want "xorgconfig" back so I can do things manually if I so desire.
Sounds like this is going to need to be in the Release Notes.
I disagree. If you have to add it the release notes then the interface is wrong. It needs *FIXING*.
The two are not mutually exclusive. AIUI this is a major upstream decision, and given the stated project goals of riding closely thereto, I wonder if such a fix will be forthcoming.
One of the things about FC6 that bothers me is the exclusion of an adequate configuration file to make X work correctly. Since it is obvious that the server does not do the right thing in a reliable enough manner, passing a command to the x configuration program for either a minimal or conventional X configuration file should be included, upstream or not. The default should be for the conventional and more reliable configuration.
The main goal of Fedora should be to make the most reliable distribution that follows upstream as closely as practical instead of following upstream to the letter when their goals are ahead of their accomplishments.
Jim
Jim Cornette wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 17:56 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I just want "xorgconfig" back so I can do things manually if I so desire.
Sounds like this is going to need to be in the Release Notes.
I disagree. If you have to add it the release notes then the interface is wrong. It needs *FIXING*.
The two are not mutually exclusive. AIUI this is a major upstream decision, and given the stated project goals of riding closely thereto, I wonder if such a fix will be forthcoming.
One of the things about FC6 that bothers me is the exclusion of an adequate configuration file to make X work correctly.
Not to be pedantic but there is no FC6 yet and things do work correctly out of the box on my system so that above statement is not true in all cases anyway.
Since it is
obvious that the server does not do the right thing in a reliable enough manner, passing a command to the x configuration program for either a minimal or conventional X configuration file should be included, upstream or not. The default should be for the conventional and more reliable configuration.
The main goal of Fedora should be to make the most reliable distribution that follows upstream as closely as practical instead of following upstream to the letter when their goals are ahead of their accomplishments.
I do hope that we are able to pull this off correctly before the general release. If things dont work correctly, discussing them with bug reports in hand would be better than generalizing the problem.
Rahul
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:46:19AM +0530, Rahul wrote:
One of the things about FC6 that bothers me is the exclusion of an adequate configuration file to make X work correctly.
Not to be pedantic but there is no FC6 yet and things do work correctly out of the box on my system so that above statement is not true in all cases anyway.
Ah the "Gnome developer" defence. "It works for some people" is apparently better than "It works for everyone" us the standard justification for removing useful features and driving users to other desktops.
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 04:42 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:46:19AM +0530, Rahul wrote:
One of the things about FC6 that bothers me is the exclusion of an adequate configuration file to make X work correctly.
Not to be pedantic but there is no FC6 yet and things do work correctly out of the box on my system so that above statement is not true in all cases anyway.
Ah the "Gnome developer" defence. "It works for some people" is apparently better than "It works for everyone" us the standard justification for removing useful features and driving users to other desktops.
Adding to this post to preserve the thread...
I generally run lots of things, including test software like FC6T2, using VMware Workstation. The X display bug there is absolutely painful.
In general, you run the screen resolution of a VM at a lower setting than the screen resolution of the host OS so you can see the entire screen. VMware passes through the monitor type to the VM with the net result that X then tries to load gdm at the maximum possible resolution available - even if your host system is using a lower resolution than the max.
This results in a gdm login screen that's too big in *every* conceivable situation, including a best case scenario of having the same resolution as the host OS.
I would fervently like to add my vote that, while a minimal X configuration file is desirable, minimal that maintains a reasonable amount of control over your system is by far the best.
Putting it another way, some of us actually *like* having manual transmissions in our cars. Mine is a 6-speed and it's a blast! If someone forced an automatic transmission on me, I would be just as upset. The last time that happened, I told the sales person there's an old saying that automatic transmissions are like enemas; they're made for people who can't shift for themselves...
Cheers,
Chris
Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com) said:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:59:02AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
xorg.conf is supposed to be dead minimal. It figures things out by probing the monitor and video card. It will choose the highest agreeable resolution to use. You can override with a personal (IE per user) preference for resolution using System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution.
Unfortunately this is based upon a set of bogus suppositions.
Well, to be truthful, what we have now *should* be 100% compatible with 'using the auto-probed defaults' from previous releases. Anything else is a bug, and should be filed against the X server.
Now, given those bugs, s-c-display should allow you to manually specify a working config when X fails - that's a different set of issues.
Bill
-
Alan Cox -
Bill Nottingham -
Christopher A. Williams -
Jesse Keating -
Jim Cornette -
Justin Conover -
Mike Chambers -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram