Slashdot Mirror


New Failsafe Graphics Mode For Ubuntu

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."

12 of 505 comments (clear)

  1. This is the sort of thing OS needs to focus on by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As silly as it sounds, I've come across so many new Linux users who have messed up their display settings in some way, been unable to use the command line to fix it and have just resorted to giving up or reinstalling, neither is really an ideal option.

    Whilst to the average Slashdotter this may sound silly, I'd bet it's one of the biggest things that puts your average Joe off Linux through the years. Being able to easier recover from broken Linux installs will, imo go a long way to keeping people using Linux rather than the current situation where quite a few try, but many give up. Linux is generally nice and stable, but when it does go wrong, to most people it's just far, far too hard to recover your installation back into a working state - much more so than, dare I say it, Windows. This is however why I'd say Ubuntu has been making such headway in attracting new users to Linux because they do seem to understand what problems exactly that up until now have been putting many new users off Linux.

  2. Re:Oooooooh! by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Heh, the flamebait that'd be modded Insightful solely depending on the OS. ;)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  3. Very good by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is very good, I'm sure a lot of users would like to have the choice of selecting these in a graphical mode, which with they may be more familiar. Many users familiar with Windows/OSX will automatically be more familiar with Ubuntu because of this feature. It's important to have as many options available on CLI and GUI at the same time.

    I remember that back in the day YaST (SuSE's Yet Another Setup Tool) used to be incredibly handy because the CLI and GUI for the tool, which controlled almost all configurable options of the Linux distro, would behave almost exactly the same. The CLI used curses for display, and I believe the GUI was QT-based. They functioned pretty much identically. Personally, I have no problem just editing a text file. But, if you are a linux newbie and you poke around in the GUI and mess something up, then suddenly you can't start X, you feel a little bit safer knowing that there's a tool you can use to revert your settings that works exactly the same on the CLI as it does in the GUI, so you can access the program in almost any situation, even from a remote terminal.

  4. Linux has always had "safe mode". by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux has always had "safe mode". You boot single user from the command line.

    This is more "easy GUI re-configuration of X.org when X.org blows up".

    Well ..... I guess you could consider it "safe mode" for X.org. But not for "Linux".

    1. Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". by bobetov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Linux has always had "safe mode". You boot single user from the command line.

      A command line driven OS is, to 99.999% of humanity, not an operating system. The OS is the metaphor. Dropping into a text-based mode might as well be powering down. In fact it's almost certainly worse, from a user's perspective - more confronting, confusing and frustrating.

      It does no good to tell my Mom or my non-tech friend "Don't worry, your operating system is fine, it's just the GUI." They likely blew something up using the GUI. Trying to find which text file to edit, and how to edit text files, and how to navigate directories, all with a CLI, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. If I break it in GUI, I need to be able to fix it in GUI, or it won't get fixed.

      Stop being a part of the problem here. If X doesn't work, the OS is broken. This is a major improvement in Ubuntu overall, not just some minor fix to X.

      --
      Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    2. Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In terms of modern computing from the aspect of the average end user, the OS is OS + GUI + basic applications, period. Not only that, but continuing to ignore this simple fact marginalizes Linux, especially since most college age computer users have never used a PC without a mouse and GUI, ever. Meeting basic user expectations in terms of usability only helps the so-called legitimacy of your distro in comparison to the other major desktop OSes."

                No it doesn't. I work at a surplus computer store, and people come in wanting a "hard drive". Like 3/4ths want a hard drive, the other 1/4th.. it is either the machine proper, the monitor, or in a few odd cases the printer. That doesn't mean I should just start calling everything the hard drive -- it's wrong terminology. Calling a big mass of crap the OS is also wrong. The people saying X isn't part of the OS are flat out right; they aren't arguing that making X easier to setup is bad.

    3. Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". by Da+Web+Guru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many PC clones were sold before windows 3.1 hit? How about the Apple II series? Millions. Did the people who bought these get amnesia in 1995?
      No, they didn't, but we really aren't dealing with the same userbase. The number of computer users back then is significantly smaller and more computer savvy than the computer users of today.

      Just because people don't know something doesn't mean they can't learn btw. Learning is good.
      Well, if you don't want more people using linux, then force them to learn the command line. Seriously, the average computer user doesn't even have a clue (nor do they care) what the "black box with white letters" (i.e., a MSDOS prompt window) is, what it is for, or why they need it.

      The vast majority of linux systems don't have X installed btw. They don't even have monitors or keyboards.
      We are not talking about servers. That is a completely different (and significantly more knowledgeable) userbase. We are talking about desktop computers that "normal" people (i.e., people that don't eat, sleep, and dream about computers) will be using on a daily basis.

      Most of the most advanced software for the platform does not require X at all.
      Regardless of how advanced a piece of software is, if it doesn't run in a window or have an icon they can click on, then it does not exist to "normal" people.

      It is attitudes like this that hold back the wide-spread adoption of Linux on the desktop.

      --

      --guru

    4. Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please learn what an operating system is. You don't know what you are talking about. The machine is functional without a GUI. You can do nearly everything without a GUI that you can do with a GUI. Some things are even substantially faster at the command line.

      If you believe a command-line shell can be considered part of the "operating system", you have zero grounds for saying a graphical shell is not. They are merely different implementations of the same concept.

    5. Re:Linux has always had "safe mode". by Curtman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simply put, to 99% of users the GUI is the OS, and to hell with facts.

      To which users? Linux is strongest in the server room/data center. Why would you bother with running X on your db server when you can just ssh in and use GUI tools from a desktop that is running X? That desktop might even be a Windows box running cygwin/Xorg. X is not Linux, and Linux is not X.
  5. Re:How is this news? by FoolsGold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's news because Ubuntu is currently the flagship of the mainstream Linux distros - it's generally the first option for people wanting to try Linux out, so improvements like this are rather important to its success.

  6. Re:great! by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the user doesn't verify the burned CD, and doesn't do the "test media" thing on bootup your installation will fail.

    So if I don't do post-burn checks, then the disc will be a bad burn? How odd... No, if you don't do post-burn checks you don't know the burn is bad and won't burn a second disk. It's a difficult concept, I know. Think it over; you'll get it I'm sure.
    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  7. It is a problem of perception. by tknd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that that is the case ONLY because those people are coming from a Windows background.

    And the problem with your perception is that you think that the linux command line mentality is better for the average joe user. I don't disagree that if you know what you're doing, it is much easier to fix a broken Linux than it is to fix a broken Windows. But the key here is that most people don't know what they're doing. Parts of the design of Windows are aimed at users that don't know what they're doing so that their PC will at least be somewhat functional for them with all of the familiar interfaces even if something bad happens.

    You see, the command line or text messages with a black background mean nothing to the user. For all purposes, if they don't see something that resembles their desktop, they think their computer is broken. They also don't care if they have to type in one command to fix it because to them, learning that the command line exists and that you can even enter text commands is too much to deal with. If you can't expect failure in your software and implement necessary messages and functionality to recover to a close but not quite mode expected by the user, it doesn't mean a damn thing because they will end up calling the nearest geek to fix it. And when they do that, it doesn't matter how long it takes you to fix or even if you can't fix it. They've already lost time waiting for your service and your service is only seen as a backup effort. If geeks were not available, they probably would have considered their computer broken and the only way to fix it would be to purchase a new one.

    The people at Ubuntu are doing more for linux and open source software adoption than anyone else has. Take a hint and learn something about understanding other (non-techy) user's viewpoints. If all open source developers could actually understand those users, then linux might eventually be ready for the desktop.