RE: tlug: X resolution / color depth

["Jonathan Byrne--3Web" <jq@example.com>]

-----Original Message-----
$B:9=P?M(B : David J Iannucci <dji@example.com>
$B08@example.com(B : tlug@example.com <tlug@example.com>
$BF|;~(B : 1998$BG/(B3$B7n(B19$BF|(B 1:25
$B7oL>(B : RE: tlug: X resolution / color depth



>I've been using XF86Setup for configuring, and I don't think this
>lets you choose run-time bpp or resolution (this info isn't specified
>in the config file, in any case).

xf86config lets you choose all that.  The TurboLinux Xconfigurator also
works quite well, if you want to switch flavors :-)

>   Philosophical question, for anyone: why is this hardware-level
>video configuration crap not necessary for Mac and Windows, and isn't
>there _some_ way they can make it unnecessary for X?!  This is

Well, you sort of have to do it for Windows, but you just go into control
panel and set how many colors you want and what screen size you want, from
the available choices.  You even have a slide control for screen size.  I
really agree with you about these ease of use issues.  A major obstacle to
popularizing Linux is going to be the difficulty of setting it up and
getting it working.  I can't believe there's a Mac or Windows user anywhere
who goes through what we voluntarily put ourselves through because we like
Linux.  If Macs and Windows were this tough, nobody would use them except
computer professionals, the way it was in the old days.  And guess what?
The only people who use Linux and FreeBSD are computer professionals and
hardcore hobbyists who have high levels of expertise.  I too, can't see any
legitimate reason why it can't get much easier.  The obstacles that I see to
it are 1) Funds (OK, that's a legit reason).  Linus and the distribution
developers don't have anywhere near as much money to throw at this as
Microsoft and Apple do; 2) The idea that a computer shouldn't be difficult
to use hasn't penetrated very far in the UNIX community yet.  That's why so
much stuff still seems like it's designed to be as hard as possible.  Most
of the people using Linux and FreeBSD are computer professionals, a huge
number of which are programmers and/or UNIX sys admins, and they don't
really see any reason to change the way is, since it works OK for them.
Consider this: For about US $50, you can get a Linux distribution that will
give you the tools that you'd spend about 100 times as much on to get with
NT Server, maybe more.  Why?  Because it's so much easier to use if you're
not a sys admin level UNIX expert.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the end user and make a system they
can deal with easily.  We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the
marketing person, who knows that most people will never buy an OS that is
this relatively difficult (and supports double-byte langauges so poorly
compared to a Mac, Windows, or OS/2).  Linux is still very far from being a
computer system for the masses, and as long as it remains that way,
Microsoft doesn't have to worry about it and developers won't bother writing
commercially for it.  When will we be able to walk into a software store and
see lots of cool apps doing cool things for Linux like we can for Windows?
Never, if things stay the way they are now.  Maybe someday, if these issues
get resolved.

A lot of people have also heard me gripe about these things a lot, but
obviously I like Linux or I wouldn't be here still using it.  I think
pointing out these shortcomings is very important.  Linux is described as
being a powerful, true 32-bit OS, and it is.  But there's also another
definition of powerful.  It's the ability to configure, with a little basic
knowledge and a few mouse clicks, things that require a huge amount of
expert knowledge and often the editing of config files containing lots of
things and requiring that same expert knowledge on other systems.  That's
the made the Mac popular.  That's what made Microsoft move in the same
direction.  That's why the both sell so much and are so popular.  Linux
needs to go that way, too.  PHT's TurboDesk (part of the TurboLinux
distribution) is a terrific step in that direction and it's one of the
things I really like about TL, but there's still a lot more that could be
done.  It's still a young distribution, though.  Watch for great things from
PHT.

Linux has come a long way, and I think 1997 was a watershed year and 1998
will see still more great advances and popularization. But this is just the
beginning.  Linux is competing with NT (successfully) in some areas, but
we've still got a long way to go before we can really compete with Windows
overall.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way :-)

Jonathan

---------------------------------------------------------------
Next TLUG Meeting: 11 April Sat, Tokyo Station Yaesu gate 12:30
Featuring Tague Griffith of Netscape i18n talking on source code
---------------------------------------------------------------
a word from the sponsor:
TWICS - Japan's First Public-Access Internet System
www.twics.com  info@example.com  Tel:03-3351-5977  Fax:03-3353-6096