[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SEUL: SEUL duplicating efforts?
> > OK. The new one does the following :
> > * Probes for video card (and usually gets it right)
> > * Probes for mouse (and configures PS/2 mice correctly, which the
> > old one didn't)
> > But it still has the following problems:
> > * Firstly, it doesn't configure serial mice, ie doesn't make the
> > link from /dev/mouse
> > * In fact it doesn't even restart gpm. The result is that the newbie
> > is stuck wondering what they're doing wrong, especially if they set the
> > link, and their serial mouse still doesn't work.
> > * The Configurator doesn't set the link from X to the server.
> > * Setting up the monitor is still a problem. Sometimes it works the
> > first time and sometimes it is a real headache. Even when it does work,
> > frequently (usually), the performance (resolution/color/refresh rate) are
> > sub-optimal...
> > * Still, the configurator on RedHat 5 gave me top colour depth
> > straight away, RH 4.1 didn't. (though the refresh rate wasn't good), and
> > set up my
> > NEC VERSA without any probs.
> First of all, most of these problems shouldn't be taken care of by the
> X configurator.
> It is generally designed to setup the server/card/depth
> with only keyboard and mouse sliced in. The basic installation should
> configure devices, setup preferred languages, etc.
But configuring the devices (setting links, in particular) is part of
configuring X. It can't really be seperated. If I get a new vid card, I
should be able to reconfigure with just one program. That program should
take care of both detection and configuration.
> Another point I'd like to get at, is that to boot the user into a shell
> is not a good idea.
hence the discussion concerning xdm. But hey, what about my menu based
(a) just requires you to select and hit return (much like
point-and-click except not as pretty) and
(b) allows you to change the initial run level to 5 (XDM) once the display
is set up ? relying on being able to boot into a graphical shell does seem
like risky business...
> A. Bare bones linux
> B. Bare bones graphics workstation
> C. Development Workstation
> D. An Office Workstation
> E. A Drawing Workstation
> F. My University Companion :-)
> G. Just try to fill my HD, if you can :-)
Some kind of simplified installation would be good.
Another idea: boxes with nice helpful messages that you can check.
"check here if you need to connect to the internet"
"check here if your computer is part of a network"
"check here if you want to install the graphics packages"
in fact this could link with your idea: for example, you could look at the
graphics workstation, which has " ... graphics packages" checked. The idea
is that it gives flexibility without confusing the issue, and makes the
user aware of what the "graphics workstation" really is.
> mouse, if there is it makes the link /dev/ttySx <-> /dev/mouse.
though this shouldn't really require input from the user... the point is
that the RedHat Xconfig program seems to require the user to set the link
which is really silly...
> But a graphics workstation setup, should never depend on the user to start
> the graphics.
well until X is set up correctly, it really should ! with a menu shell,
you can just select 'start graphics' from the (root) shell menu and hit
return. You could even choose 'start graphics at boot next time'. I've
seen X fail before several times (and screwed it up myself on a few
having a text console to boot into until X works would be a very good
thing. Booting into xdm is nice when the display is set up, but if it's
not, you want an insurance policy. Well I do anyway.
Another idea : on SunOS, they have something where it starts
sunview/openwin when you log in by default, but allows you to interrupt
and go to the shell by hitting ^C. I wonder if something like this could
be done ?
> These are the people you're dealing with, and booting them into a shell
> and telling them to execute scripts to setup graphics... they're going to
> answer "Hey, is this a Sun 3? I can get those at the scrap yard?". Give them
> a menu shell, and they'll say "Hey, this is just like my old MS-DOS 5.0
sure, but the menu shell needn't be much more than part of the setup
process (like a "safe mode"). Even Win95 has dos + a safe mode. My point
is that you can give them the menu
shell and allow them to discard it early in the piece.
> exceptions... the main stream want's hot new stuff. This is what MS knows,
> and this is what helps them keep ahead...
> If the user says "I want a graphics workstation", then that's what should
> be setup for him, along with a graphics login screen. If the user says "I
> want a bare bones linux", then ok... bare bones it is, and shells. Unless
> the installation procedure can't figure the users system out correctly, in
the problem is that the installation process often seems unaware that it
hasn't figured out the system. For example, I have seen X fire up and the
monitor squeal with a blank screen, and seen X fire up with screwed
vertical timings. the system doesn't "know" that it's not set up properly.
And unless some-one does something revolutionary with the monitor set up
procedure, there will be problems.