[nigde@mitechki.net: Re: Framebuffer activation]

[Daniel Stone]

----- Forwarded message from Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy <nigde at mitechki.net> -----

Subject: Re: Framebuffer activation
From: Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy <nigde at mitechki.net>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:09:16 -0500
Message-Id: <1107270556.18898.13.camel at raistlin.itd.bnl.gov>

Please respond to the list, so others can participate in the discussion

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 01:58 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:49:27AM -0500, Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy wrote:
> > Yes, but I believe that 1024x768 resolution was mentioned as an example.
> > I can definitely believe that there are still systems out there that
> > don't support 1024x768 (albeit one has to wonder why) and if we want a
> > splash screen, we probably want to stick with something more
> > conservative by default. To me, 800x600 sounds reasonable. 800x600 is
> > standard SVGA and should be supported by any VESA compliant card, and a
> > monitor that doesn't support 800x600 (with a few rare exceptions) should
> > commit suicide and force its owner to by something better.
> 
> This is not a reasonable position to take when you are talking limiting
> installing Warty, and again I remind you of laptops.  Most framebuffer
> drivers (read: all) will either refuse to display a mode that is not
> the panel's native mode, or just display garbage.
> 
> We have walked this route before, we have seen the problems, and they
> are too overwhelmingly to even consider this kind of option.  It will
> simply not happen.

----- End forwarded message -----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050202/981271f2/attachment.pgp