Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 20th Apr 2008 12:52 UTC, submitted by Michael Larabel
X11, Window Managers Have you ever been annoyed by Linux' lack of a coherent graphical boot process? Graphics hardware causing problems during sleep/wake cycles? Problematic virtual terminal switches? Kernel-based mode-setting, a new feature of Xorg still in heavy development aims to solve many of these problems by moving the mode-setting code from the user-space X driver into the Linux kernel. Phoronix takes a look at this new feature.
Thread beginning with comment 310581
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

X is *cough* rotten *cough*.

No. Hibernation *does* work in Linux. I'll prove it right now by hibernating my laptop and restarting it. There. See? It worked! What you are forgetting is the huge volume of disparate, broken hardware out there that has been "fixed" by the manufacturer with a Windows driver update. That's what makes hibernation so difficult to solve in a general way. Confining low level control of the video hardware to user space, while depending upon the kernel to do the hibernate/wake up is a recipe for unreliability across the broad range of commodity hardware available.

I would not trade X for any other display system available. And I continue to be puzzled by the tendency of some to unjustly criticize it at every opportunity. What's rotten, and has been for a long time, is the fact that, for whatever reason, control of the basic state of the display hardware has been shunned by the kernel devs.

Don't get me wrong. The complex stuff belongs in user space. But responsibility for something so basic as setting the graphics mode lies squarely within the domain of the OS kernel.

We've been talking about something like this for at least 11 years. Linus rejected the original GGI out of hand back in 1997 or so. And here we are just getting this functionality which has been so sorely lacking for so long. And the delay was certainly no fault of X's.

Edited 2008-04-20 18:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

1- write "hibernate" in the terminal emulator
2- turn the computer on
3- wait
4- wait
5- find yourself in a useless brick of a session with a psychedelic screen
6- reboot
7- run fsck
8- Now you are free to reload your applications and data one by one.
9- ????
10- $$$$!!!
(This is more like it)

If the GFX driver can load usually there's absolutely no justifiable reason for it to hang the whole system on dehibernation. I don't care if the driver is Nvidia, ATI or open source as in my case. You set the screen to the right mode and restore the windows. At most I would understand some garbled graphics if I was running a 3d game when I hibernated the thing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Okay, now the wise person who modded me down will please tell me which statement in my previous post is false? Is there any opinion for you to disagree with? Can you justify that the design of hibernate makes a working part of the OS hang the whole system up? If so, please enlighten me.
If you must have the immature attitude of modding people down because they happen to describe non-functional parts of your favorite OS, at least you could make a reason up to justify it rationally.

Reply Parent Score: 0

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"X is *cough* rotten *cough*.

No. Hibernation *does* work in Linux. I'll prove it right now by hibernating my laptop and restarting it. There. See? It worked! What you are forgetting is the huge volume of disparate, broken hardware out there that has been "fixed" by the manufacturer with a Windows driver update. That's what makes hibernation so difficult to solve in a general way. Confining low level control of the video hardware to user space, while depending upon the kernel to do the hibernate/wake up is a recipe for unreliability across the broad range of commodity hardware available.

I would not trade X for any other display system available. And I continue to be puzzled by the tendency of some to unjustly criticize it at every opportunity. What's rotten, and has been for a long time, is the fact that, for whatever reason, control of the basic state of the display hardware has been shunned by the kernel devs.

Don't get me wrong. The complex stuff belongs in user space. But responsibility for something so basic as setting the graphics mode lies squarely within the domain of the OS kernel.

We've been talking about something like this for at least 11 years. Linus rejected the original GGI out of hand back in 1997 or so. And here we are just getting this functionality which has been so sorely lacking for so long. And the delay was certainly no fault of X's.
"

Give me Quartz/WindowServer from OS X on Linux in a heartbeat.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"[q]X is *cough* rotten *cough*.

I would not trade X for any other display system available
"
Give me Quartz/WindowServer from OS X on Linux in a heartbeat. [/q]

You're out of your mind. I assert that X is superior to quartz in every technical respect. If I were an OS maker using X as my display technology with a finite, known set of hardware as the target I could give you the *exact same* or *better* experience, compared to that found on OS X, without difficulty.

Just because Apple makes their system work well does not mean it is superior, just that it can be made to work well.

Let me say it clearly for those who don't seem to understand: X is good and it's not going anywhere. Fixes to its problems can and are being made without throwing it out. A better system is *possible* to construct, but *really* difficult to do properly. In reality no better system is likely to be adopted within at least a decade.

Reply Parent Score: 4