Invitation to ubuntu developers
timschmidt at gmail.com
Sun Nov 26 06:03:07 GMT 2006
On 11/26/06, Mark Reitblatt <Mark at reitblatt.com> wrote:
> On 11/25/06, Tim Schmidt <timschmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seriously now... nv works amazingly well for every use but 'bling'.
> > Nvidia's binary driver is literally _NEVER_ required to install the
> > OS.
> That's not entirely accurate. Ubuntu WOULD NOT use my 2007FP
> (1600x1200) at its native resolution w/ the nv driver. I installed the
> binary driver, and all of a sudden it worked, like magic. The driver
> incorrectly reported the resolution of the screen, so Xorg wouldn't
> accept 1600x1200 even if I made it the only option.
'Wouldn't use it at it's native resolution' doesn't sound much like
'wouldn't install' to me. You?
> I've been meaning to file a bug against it, and you just reminded me.
> No, running a 1600x1200 LCD @ 1280x1024 is not an acceptable solution.
> Sure I could install it, but I would NEED to install the binary
> drivers immediately afterwards to get a reasonable level of usability.
> If I was a newb who didn't know about the binary drivers, I would've
> walked away right then and there.
Yeah, I know. Windows works so much better in that case. </sarchasm>
> Pointing out that a piece of software isn't perfect isn't a sign of
> disrespect. In fact, it can be construed (in the right context) as a
> sign of respect. Your software doesn't work right, but I have enough
> respect for your abilities to file a bug and expect you to be able to
> fix it.
Exactly. Which we _cannot_ do with the binary nvidia drivers. No
fixes possible. Which is why respectful people don't shove it down
the throats of others.
Make is at easy as possible to install after the fact. Installing it
by default is entirely unacceptable.
More information about the ubuntu-devel