OSNews

I have a CRT monitor so when I first booted up ubuntu, I get a nauseatingly low refresh rate. Then I had to look up all the info to get everything to work (had to figure out how to use terminal, etc)...and ended up with a big headache. I was willing to do this because I like to do crazy things for the heck of it. But ubuntu for the average user? This is crapware not ready for primetime. Sorry.

If I had a Linux distribution liveCD and I booted it and it did not run my video card & monitor at optimal resolution and refresh rate (like Windows when you first boot the installation disk), then I would:

(1) be very disappointed, and then I would

(2) get a better liveCD distribution.

Ahh the joys of not having a Control Center. Also all that autoconfigure X crap is a pain in the behind. Use gtf and generate a modeline.
e.g. gtf 1440 900 60. Stick that modeline in your xorg.conf. Force xorg.conf to use that mode and off you go.
Here is my xorg.conf

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "monitor1"
VendorName "Generic"
ModelName "Flat Panel 1600x900"
HorizSync 31.5-90.0
VertRefresh 60

# modeline generated by gtf(1) [handled by XFdrake]
Modeline "1600x900_60.00" 119.00 1600 1696 1864 2128 900 901 904 932 -HSync +Vsync

EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier "device1"
VendorName "nVidia Corporation"
BoardName "NVIDIA GeForce 6100 and later"
Driver "nvidia"
Option "DPMS"
Option "ModeValidation" "NoDFPNativeResolutionCheck,NoVirtualSizeCheck,NoMaxPClkCheck,NoHoriz SyncCheck ,NoVertRefreshCheck,NoWidthAlignmentCheck"
Option "DynamicTwinView" "false"
Option "AddARGBGLXVisuals"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "screen1"
Device "device1"
Monitor "monitor1"
DefaultColorDepth 24

Subsection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1600x900_60.00"
EndSubsection

Subsection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1600x900_60.00"
EndSubsection

Subsection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1600x900_60.00"
EndSubsection

Subsection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1600x900_60.00"
EndSubsection
EndSection

And you really think desktop users want to deal with that?

Stick that modeline in your xorg.conf.

I think you just summarized the Linux desktop experience in a single sentence.

1) Joe Sixpack is going to tell you where to shove it when you tell them "add that to your x.org.conf"

2) That does NOT work with the nvidia drivers, you have to include a metamodes line, and metamodes doesn't seem to work right on a GTX260 if you have more than one color depth specified as 'displays'.

For me: I am using Arch right now.

http://chakra-project.org/news/index.php?/archives/17-Chakra-Alpha3...

It doesn't use Pulseaudio.

You can select the open source drivers for your video card, and in my case doing that gives me great performance compared with the binary blob driver.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600_r700_2d...

Arch is a rolling release, so as soon as new software is released:

http://amarok.kde.org/en/releases/2.2

I can install it right away, without having to wait for the next six-month update:

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/amarok/

Since the open source 3D driver for my card won't be released until kernel 2.6.32, which is still in release candidate status, this means I will have to wait only about 10 weeks now until I can run the 3D driver.

Hopefully the great 2D performance, which is what is required for desktop use, will still remain after the 3D functionality is added.

Having said all that, right now with Arch (apart from the current lack of 3D), I am having no problems with audio or with X.

Edited 2009-10-02 03:37 UTC

I think you are mixing up X11 and XOrg. There are many implementation of X11, XOrg is just the one used by Ubuntu and most Linux desktops.

And your problem is the XOrg driver for your card, and I'm guessing it's not XOrg's own driver your using but the closed driver from the graphics card manufacturer, and that will be because I'm guessing XOrg's driver for your card can't use all the features (like 3D) of the card because the people writing XOrg's own driver for the card don't have the specs.

xinerama is old hat, Xrandr is what you want, only closed drivers aren't keeping up.

But this is a silly conversation from the start, "real" drivers have no place in any X server, and through efforts suchs as KMS and Gallium3D the drivers are indeed being moved out of X and in to the kernel, then their need only be a single X driver which talks to these abstractions. The closed drivers need writing or replacing, but they are closed, however there are efforts such as Nouveau to replace them with open ones that can be kept up.

XOrg needs people, specs and time, but it is evolving.

>> I think you are mixing up X11 and XOrg.
>> There are many implementation of X11, XOrg
>> is just the one used by Ubuntu and most Linux
>> desktops.

... and they all suffer from these problems, many of them WORSE than x.org.

>> And your problem is the XOrg driver for your
>> card, and I'm guessing it's not XOrg's own driver
>> your using but the closed driver from the graphics
>> card manufacturer, and that will be because I'm
>> guessing XOrg's driver for your card can't use all
>> the features (like 3D) of the card because the
>> people writing XOrg's own driver for the card don't
>> have the specs.

Don't give me that open source BULLSHIT... or more specifically where you point the finger on that is complete **** manure. Why do I say that? Because Windows has had FLAWLESS multiple display support since Win98, Apple has had it since System 5, and ALL you have to do is plug in the cards, install the drivers, and check off a box under display properties... and assuming your monitor is connected via DVI the mode detection has worked pretty well back to win98 and is flawless under V/7 (one of the few things that WORKS in Vista) and I've been running multi-display since Win 3.1 using a Targa board... NONE of which involves ANY open source driver malarkey. What it involved is a stable damned driver API - But don't ask that of the *nix community.

The dirty ***** hippy attitude of open source or nothing has prevented there being a consistent binary base for closed drivers - and hardware makers LIKE closed drivers... and so do I since to be brutally honest I'll stack nVidia's closed drivers on a crappy decade old Ge2 against the best open source driver efforts on a 'modern' Intel. What would you rather run linsux on? Ge2MX with closed drivers or GMA950 with open ones? Unless you've dipped into the FSF cool aid....

>> xinerama is old hat, Xrandr is what you want,
>> only closed drivers aren't keeping up.

Being the two do entirely different things, one setting display resolution and the other allowing the use of multiple monitors - I want BOTH. I want them talking to each-other, and be in nVidia, Intel or ATI guess what, they don't do so worth a flying ****.

>> "real" drivers have no place in any X server

That X is effectively monolithic when it comes to the video drivers I agree on that one part, but...

>> and through efforts suchs as KMS and Gallium3D
>> the drivers are indeed being moved out of X and in
>> to the kernel, then their need only be a single X
>> driver which talks to these abstractions.

Because adding yet another layer or two of abstraction to the process is the answer... NOT. Let's face it, the X11 server/client layers were not even developed to run off the same machine and as such ends up like driving with the parking brake on - which is why damned near every low end extension that's been done to X11 tries to bypass that relationship altogether - xRandR, Composite, dbe, bitmap, dri, glx - all exist to bypass how X11 is supposed to work because the server/client relationship is too slow to be practical for anything except remote server.

Much less the programming API that sucks so bad everyone and their brother has another layer of abstraction to sit atop it to make it usable - Old school you'd be hard pressed to find a single book that actually tells you how to program X11 directly - they all will tell you to just use Motif. Today we have GTK, QT, lessTif, FLTK, Fox, TCL/TK - all exist entirely because the X11 API is such a half assed convoluted mess nobody actually wants to program for it directly.

Adding yet another layer of abstraction adding yet another layer of bloat... So yeah, let's add another layer of abstraction to that, that's a GREAT idea.

... and we wonder why even when it works anything running X Windows feels like a disjointed buggy mess. Hell it's so bad most Desktop managers can't even get user notification that a program is in the process of launching right. Like when I start most any application if I have more than four of them running and the cursor sits there as the normal arrow for about fifteen seconds before it shows any indication of activity on screen on a Q6600 w/GTX 260 - naturally I click again and eventually have five copies open en-masse...

Even with the big fancy desktop managers most every X11 implementation still has all the fit and finish of a 1984 Yugo GV. If you are lucky it will get you where you are going - but you aren't going to be happy when you get there.

Edited 2009-10-02 16:46 UTC