Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Ubuntu xorg-server update breaks X: "no screens found"
By Joe Barr
on
August 23, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
IRC channels, LUG mailing lists, and Ubuntu wikis were buzzing with the news this morning that a recent Ubuntu Xorg update (xorg-server 1:1.0.2-0ubuntu10.3) crashes the X Window System on some video hardware. When X is restarted following installation, affected Ubuntu users get a "no screens found" error message instead of X.
The Dell Inspiron 6400 with an ATI video card, Dell Inspiron 8600 with an Nvidia 5200 card, Dell Latitude D620 with Nvidia Quadro NVS 110M video card, and Hewlett-Packard NX6125 are among the systems reported as being bitten by this bug.
One workaround being posted on Wikis is to downgrade to the previous version of Xorg by entering the following commands:
sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg-core=1:1.0.2-0ubuntu10 sudo /etc/init.d/gdm restart
A better workaround appears to be upgrading to xorg-server 1:1.0.2-0ubuntu10.4, after verifying that it is available in your repositories. To check and see if it is available to you, use the following commands:
sudo apt-get update apt-cache -f search xserver-xorg-core
If the 10.4 version listed, then proceed with:
sudo apt-get upgrade
Of course, if you haven't upgraded to 10.3 yet, don't.
Comments
on Ubuntu xorg-server update breaks X: "no screens found"Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Shut that ass of yours you call a mouth, Debian troll. Every time you open it. more shit comes out of it.
I've used Debian and many derivatives including Ubuntu over the years, but I always go back to Debian Stable. Debian unstable and testing move like quick sand and by their nature contain bugs which are constantly being resolved.
I'm always amused how the youngn's jump at the latest and ?greatest?
No one small company can match the thousand plus developers toil and years of accumulated wisdom which goes into Debian.
Be patient and wait for the next stable for all the newest features, well worth the wait.
I'm always amused how the youngn's jump at the latest and ?greatest?
No one small company can match the thousand plus developers toil and years of accumulated wisdom which goes into Debian.
Be patient and wait for the next stable for all the newest features, well worth the wait.
Be patient and wait for the next stable for all the newest features, well worth the wait.
Uh-huh.. Debian stable, with such things as <a href="http://packages.debian.org/stable/web/mozilla-firefox" title="debian.org">Firefox v1.0.4</a debian.org>, <a href="http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/xfree86-common" title="debian.org"> XFree86 v4.3.0</a debian.org>, etc, etc..
Debian stable should be renamed Debian deprecated. Sure it's stable, but only because it's ancient, and only for certain values of stable. It might be fine for grannie who probably still has Windows 95 anyway, but anyone who is the slightest bit interested in software won't stay on stable for long. Has it got a Linux v2.6 kernel yet at least?
I do hope your using ntfs-3g already, oh bad luck it's not in unstable, I've been using it for months now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P
The Openoffice 2.03 keeps updating, mine stays the same because I built it and it works<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P
The Openoffice 2.03 keeps updating, mine stays the same because I built it and it works<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P
I do hope your using ntfs-3g already, oh bad luck it's not in unstable, I've been using it for months now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P
I'm not using it because I don't have any ntfs partitions to use it with. I didn't even say anything about what I was using. I use Gentoo at home (One server, 4 semi-diskless clients), and Ubuntu for friends and family.
exactly my impression also. Lots of the Debian folk is running still 2.4 because it is more "stable"... whatever that means.
Remember the lack of security patches at Debian about an year ago?
I prefer using some "unstable" but security-fixed software...
Remember the lack of security patches at Debian about an year ago?
I prefer using some "unstable" but security-fixed software...
Debian stable is usually so old that it isn't even working on recent hardware, that's my problem.
Lets turn this bit of flame baiting into something positive.
Check out module-assistant, now go look around for modules needed by your hardware. Doesn't matter if they're proprietory or open.
I'm using rt2500 modules (open), the most recent alsa (open), nVidia, Intel, Sis, Ati (proprietory)
Compile them up and use them. You have now become one up on yuppy newbies who 'just luv Ubuntu' you have functionality and security and your getting your hands dirty learning how Linux works.
When Debian release security update kernels, they will stay the same # 2.6-8-X your modules still work without recompiling. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.8 but it has all security updates. All Debian packages get security updates through the magic of apt-get update/upgrade, when only the best is good enough.
Check out module-assistant, now go look around for modules needed by your hardware. Doesn't matter if they're proprietory or open.
I'm using rt2500 modules (open), the most recent alsa (open), nVidia, Intel, Sis, Ati (proprietory)
Compile them up and use them. You have now become one up on yuppy newbies who 'just luv Ubuntu' you have functionality and security and your getting your hands dirty learning how Linux works.
When Debian release security update kernels, they will stay the same # 2.6-8-X your modules still work without recompiling. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.8 but it has all security updates. All Debian packages get security updates through the magic of apt-get update/upgrade, when only the best is good enough.
Other distributiuons have also released patches that broke things. It was an error. A bad one, but one that is easily fixed. Why are you so quick to jump down Ubuntu's throat? Did you react the same way when Red Hat released a bad patch the broke some systems? Do you hate all open source, or just Ubuntu. What is the reason for this anger? Did your mother treat you badly as a child. Did she keep the cookie recipe a secret from you?
Yeah, as if Microsoft s**tware never breaks. Or succumbs to viruses. Or needs rebooting five times just to install one. sodding. patch.
A Victory for Microsoft's "Pollute Linux" Strategy
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2006 05:31 AM
Microsoft can't hurt Linux as long as it uses Free and Open Source software.
Thus, one of Microsoft's strategies has been to make Linux dependent on proprietary software and protocols, where Microsoft has some control (often working through proxies, to hide their actions).
Two examples of this are Microsoft's push for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net and DRM over the Internet.
Another is NVidia's and ATI's proprietary video drivers.
A few years ago, both NVidia, and (especially) ATI, were providing technical support for projects developing Open Source Linux drivers for their video cards.
Then, Microsoft contracted with NVidia to be a supplier for the XBox, following which NVidia hired up the NVidia driver developers, and stopped them from working on the Open Source driver, to work on closed source NVidia drivers instead. Likewise, when Microsoft contracted with ATI to be an XBox supplier, ATI stopped supplying technical information for the Open Source ATI driver project.
Since then, we have been inundated with astroturf making the ridiculous claim that there is no danger in using closed source drivers with Open Source Linux.
Now, those chickens have come home to roost.
The reason that there is a problem here is not Ubuntu's fault. On the contrary, it is the fault of the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers.
For starters, the closed source nature of those drivers makes it much harder to test and debug problems with using those drivers.
Plus, when new features depend on corresponding changes in the drivers, we are left with a choice between some users (the proprietary driver users) having compatibility problems, or leaving the new features out of Linux until the proprietary driver manufacturers manage to catch up.
Those sorts of situations -- delayed development, and usability problems -- are part of a strategy that Microsoft calls "putting the competition on the treadmill." It is just what Microsoft intended when they acted to push closed source NVidia and ATI drivers onto Linux.
Fedora has already run into problems with the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers, when they tried to add support for X.org 7.1, with some great new XGL features:
<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/</a lwn.net>
Fedora's decision was to leave out X.org 7.1 support to avoid problems like those experienced by some Ubuntu users. It has been speculated that NVidia and ATI will intentionally delay updating their Linux drivers until Microsoft can add similar XGL-like features into Vista.
Personally, I think Fedora's decision to delay the new features was wrong. Those Fedora users who chose to run closed source drivers made their choice, with full knowledge that they were making themselves dependent on closed source companies (not to mention friends of Microsoft) to provide timely driver updates. It is wrong to hold back features that Open Source Linux users could enjoy, in order to accomodate users who are choosing to pollute their systems with closed source drivers.
Finally, part of Microsoft's strategy is that, when problems occur, users will blame Linux, instead of the closed source drivers.
And that's exactly what has happened here. Even Joe Barr was fooled.
Thus, one of Microsoft's strategies has been to make Linux dependent on proprietary software and protocols, where Microsoft has some control (often working through proxies, to hide their actions).
Two examples of this are Microsoft's push for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net and DRM over the Internet.
Another is NVidia's and ATI's proprietary video drivers.
A few years ago, both NVidia, and (especially) ATI, were providing technical support for projects developing Open Source Linux drivers for their video cards.
Then, Microsoft contracted with NVidia to be a supplier for the XBox, following which NVidia hired up the NVidia driver developers, and stopped them from working on the Open Source driver, to work on closed source NVidia drivers instead. Likewise, when Microsoft contracted with ATI to be an XBox supplier, ATI stopped supplying technical information for the Open Source ATI driver project.
Since then, we have been inundated with astroturf making the ridiculous claim that there is no danger in using closed source drivers with Open Source Linux.
Now, those chickens have come home to roost.
The reason that there is a problem here is not Ubuntu's fault. On the contrary, it is the fault of the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers.
For starters, the closed source nature of those drivers makes it much harder to test and debug problems with using those drivers.
Plus, when new features depend on corresponding changes in the drivers, we are left with a choice between some users (the proprietary driver users) having compatibility problems, or leaving the new features out of Linux until the proprietary driver manufacturers manage to catch up.
Those sorts of situations -- delayed development, and usability problems -- are part of a strategy that Microsoft calls "putting the competition on the treadmill." It is just what Microsoft intended when they acted to push closed source NVidia and ATI drivers onto Linux.
Fedora has already run into problems with the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers, when they tried to add support for X.org 7.1, with some great new XGL features:
<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/</a lwn.net>
Fedora's decision was to leave out X.org 7.1 support to avoid problems like those experienced by some Ubuntu users. It has been speculated that NVidia and ATI will intentionally delay updating their Linux drivers until Microsoft can add similar XGL-like features into Vista.
Personally, I think Fedora's decision to delay the new features was wrong. Those Fedora users who chose to run closed source drivers made their choice, with full knowledge that they were making themselves dependent on closed source companies (not to mention friends of Microsoft) to provide timely driver updates. It is wrong to hold back features that Open Source Linux users could enjoy, in order to accomodate users who are choosing to pollute their systems with closed source drivers.
Finally, part of Microsoft's strategy is that, when problems occur, users will blame Linux, instead of the closed source drivers.
And that's exactly what has happened here. Even Joe Barr was fooled.
Upgrading to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.4 isn't a "workaround" -- that package version is the proper fix.
I'm afraid that the "some hardware" was in fact "almost all hardware". ATI, Nvidia and even a Matrox owner all reported a dead X.
The Ubuntu guys did jump on it as soon as they knew there was a problem. And they acknowledged it. What would be a good idea for them would be for some official word to come out about it so that people's understanding of things is not limited to what they saw of the X blackout.
The Ubuntu guys did jump on it as soon as they knew there was a problem. And they acknowledged it. What would be a good idea for them would be for some official word to come out about it so that people's understanding of things is not limited to what they saw of the X blackout.
I agree - almost all hardware crashed. Testing must have been nearly zero. I have a five year old Nvdia GeForce2 card and the boot process hung.
I had to reboot into windows to read the forums, then do apt-get to upgrade to 10.4.
So much for user-friendly, 'Let's replace windows!'
This is just not good enough.
I had to reboot into windows to read the forums, then do apt-get to upgrade to 10.4.
So much for user-friendly, 'Let's replace windows!'
This is just not good enough.
This killed two evenings. I also spent a lot of time just going back and forth between windows and Ubuntu, forum-hopping for a solution. I have thoroughly loved the whole Ubuntu experience except for this and would hope they use it as a cautionary tale for future releases.
I am with you on loving the Ubuntu experience. That's what has me frustrated that they don't send something out, telling people what happened, why and why it never will happen again...
I am with you on loving the Ubuntu experience.
Sounds like an Apple user
SCNR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Sounds like an Apple user
SCNR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
So much for user-friendly, 'Let's replace windows!'
This is just not good enough.
Oh please. Have you see what happened to WinXP when the last Service Pack was released (SP2 I believe)? I don't know how many people called me to help them with it. In most cases it required a complete reinstall of XP (leaving out SP2, OC). Having X barf is nothing compared to having to do a wipe and reinstall. Not only that, the X fix was out within, what, hours? We're still waiting for MS to fix the bugs in XP that were present in NT 3.0 which have been faithfully brought over to each OS upgrade. I'll bet Vista has them as well.
"All hardware" is right - I've got a via unichrome in my laptop and got nailed as well...
<a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg01007.html" title="debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg0<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> 007.html</a debian.org>
Debian Unstable is Debian's bleeding edge development branch while Dapper Drake is supposed to be Ubuntu's "enterprise quality" stable release with Long Term Support.
So an update that breaks X is a whole lot more serious problem in Ubuntu Dapper than it is in Debian Unstable. Bugs that occasionally break the system are only to be expected in a development branch but in a stable release such blunders should not happen.
So an update that breaks X is a whole lot more serious problem in Ubuntu Dapper than it is in Debian Unstable. Bugs that occasionally break the system are only to be expected in a development branch but in a stable release such blunders should not happen.
not trying to troll but I seem to remember a problem with getting security patches to Debian stable some time ago.. As for Ubuntu I guess Linux for human beings means it's made by humans too.
Testing sure was nonexistent, as this X.org problem occurred on very common hardware, on my machine too, but the problem was fixed in hours in the offical repos. So by the time I rebooted and saw the problem, an apt-get upgrade fixed it instantly.
Goes to show again that even the simplest system administration like installing patches should only be only done by people who can fix problems. A gui is of no help to the clueless, I know too many Windows XP users who don't know what to do when Security Center springs a popup. Dumb terminals for everyone!
Testing sure was nonexistent, as this X.org problem occurred on very common hardware, on my machine too, but the problem was fixed in hours in the offical repos. So by the time I rebooted and saw the problem, an apt-get upgrade fixed it instantly.
Goes to show again that even the simplest system administration like installing patches should only be only done by people who can fix problems. A gui is of no help to the clueless, I know too many Windows XP users who don't know what to do when Security Center springs a popup. Dumb terminals for everyone!
Folks,
One of my guys, at my suggestion, downloaded Kubuntu Dapper Drake, because he saw the success that I have had with it. Both of us did our updates the day before yesterday, within a couple of hours of each other. Mine works just fine; his does not.
However, there is one other difference: I'm running the "original" Kubuntu 6.06. He's running 6.06 Update 1.
As for video cards, he's running an nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600. I'm running an nVidia Quadro4 400 NVS, which came with my system. Both, I believe, use the "nv" driver.
I have forwarded this article to him to give a shot on his 6.06.1 system. Will let you know how it goes.
One of my guys, at my suggestion, downloaded Kubuntu Dapper Drake, because he saw the success that I have had with it. Both of us did our updates the day before yesterday, within a couple of hours of each other. Mine works just fine; his does not.
However, there is one other difference: I'm running the "original" Kubuntu 6.06. He's running 6.06 Update 1.
As for video cards, he's running an nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600. I'm running an nVidia Quadro4 400 NVS, which came with my system. Both, I believe, use the "nv" driver.
I have forwarded this article to him to give a shot on his 6.06.1 system. Will let you know how it goes.
"Big Bad Windows"
I use Kubuntu on two private workstations and Unbuntu on a private server.
I am very satisfied with my Kubuntu/Ubunt workstatons and my server.
I use Windows XP on two machines that my kids uses for playing and use Windows XP on the two machines that I use on work.
I have NEVER had any experience that could be compared to this problem.
I discovered the solution to the X problem when I frustrated was about to remove X and - just by luck - notished that there were to upgradable packages. That did the trick.
But as the previous comment said - "this is just not good enough".
This issue show some big problems about Linux:
- if you want to use Linux you have to buy a tested distribution. Just like Windows. Then you have someone to blame, and a company that just wont expect you to be able to use a commandline utility.
- if you want to use a free distributed Linux OS you have to accept mistakes. I think it's "ok" to make mistakes. Just make the solutions visible in at way that is quick accesable (fx in the "frontpage" of you website).
If you want point out mistakes about Linux you have to accept:
- that EVERY time you do so, you will be told that Windows is even worse. Your problem is not vital for the one that tells you so, it's vital to point out that "Windows is bad". As the comment that i'm replaying clearly shows, it's not importent to solve anything as long as the author is able to say something bad about Microsoft.
- that you shold be able to use a commandline and the most common commandline tools. The people that tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth.
I have been using Linux for about 4 years, and my conclusion is that free distributed Linux workstations is absolut NOT a threat to Windows. I don't know anything about the payed Linux distributions.
I will NOT recommend a free distributed Linux to any of my family. It takes a lot of "blood, sweat and tears" to maintain fx Kubuntu.
If Kubuntu - or any other Linux - wants to be able to beat Windows this type of problems must just not happend.
(If anyone is interested in another troublesome problem with the upgrade from Kubuntu 5.10 Kubuntu to Kubuntu 6.06 then I will recommend the problem with automounting usb-keys/-drives and "ivman")
I hope that the discussion about wich OS is the best will stop, and that all the fanatics will remain under their stones. These people don't "love" Linux they just found Microsoft to hate.
I don't think that i'm the only one that is tired of this meaningless discussion.
I will continue to use Kubuntu, but I don't think that it will be just with joy.
Your
T
I use Kubuntu on two private workstations and Unbuntu on a private server.
I am very satisfied with my Kubuntu/Ubunt workstatons and my server.
I use Windows XP on two machines that my kids uses for playing and use Windows XP on the two machines that I use on work.
I have NEVER had any experience that could be compared to this problem.
I discovered the solution to the X problem when I frustrated was about to remove X and - just by luck - notished that there were to upgradable packages. That did the trick.
But as the previous comment said - "this is just not good enough".
This issue show some big problems about Linux:
- if you want to use Linux you have to buy a tested distribution. Just like Windows. Then you have someone to blame, and a company that just wont expect you to be able to use a commandline utility.
- if you want to use a free distributed Linux OS you have to accept mistakes. I think it's "ok" to make mistakes. Just make the solutions visible in at way that is quick accesable (fx in the "frontpage" of you website).
If you want point out mistakes about Linux you have to accept:
- that EVERY time you do so, you will be told that Windows is even worse. Your problem is not vital for the one that tells you so, it's vital to point out that "Windows is bad". As the comment that i'm replaying clearly shows, it's not importent to solve anything as long as the author is able to say something bad about Microsoft.
- that you shold be able to use a commandline and the most common commandline tools. The people that tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth.
I have been using Linux for about 4 years, and my conclusion is that free distributed Linux workstations is absolut NOT a threat to Windows. I don't know anything about the payed Linux distributions.
I will NOT recommend a free distributed Linux to any of my family. It takes a lot of "blood, sweat and tears" to maintain fx Kubuntu.
If Kubuntu - or any other Linux - wants to be able to beat Windows this type of problems must just not happend.
(If anyone is interested in another troublesome problem with the upgrade from Kubuntu 5.10 Kubuntu to Kubuntu 6.06 then I will recommend the problem with automounting usb-keys/-drives and "ivman")
I hope that the discussion about wich OS is the best will stop, and that all the fanatics will remain under their stones. These people don't "love" Linux they just found Microsoft to hate.
I don't think that i'm the only one that is tired of this meaningless discussion.
I will continue to use Kubuntu, but I don't think that it will be just with joy.
Your
T
A Victory for Microsoft's "Pollute Linux" Strategy
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2006 05:28 AM
Microsoft can't hurt Linux as long as it uses Free and Open Source software.
Thus, one of Microsoft's strategies has been to make Linux dependent on proprietary software and protocols, where Microsoft has some control (often working through proxies, to hide their actions).
Two examples of this are Microsoft's push for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net and DRM over the Internet.
Another is NVidia's and ATI's proprietary video drivers.
A few years ago, both NVidia, and (especially) ATI, were providing technical support for projects developing Open Source Linux drivers for their video cards.
Then, Microsoft contracted with NVidia to be a supplier for the XBox, following which NVidia hired up the NVidia driver developers, and stopped them from working on the Open Source driver, to work on closed source NVidia drivers instead. Likewise, when Microsoft contracted with ATI to be an XBox supplier, ATI stopped supplying technical information for the Open Source ATI driver project.
Since then, we have been inundated with astroturf making the ridiculous claim that there is no danger in using closed source drivers with Open Source Linux.
Now, those chickens have come home to roost.
The reason that there is a problem here is not Ubuntu's fault. On the contrary, it is the fault of the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers.
For starters, the closed source nature of those drivers makes it much harder to test and debug problems with using those drivers.
Plus, when new features depend on corresponding changes in the drivers, we are left with a choice between some users (the proprietary driver users) having compatibility problems, or leaving the new features out of Linux until the proprietary driver manufacturers manage to catch up.
Those sorts of situations -- delayed development, and usability problems -- are part of a strategy that Microsoft calls "putting the competition on the treadmill." It is just what Microsoft intended when they acted to push closed source NVidia and ATI drivers onto Linux.
Fedora has already run into problems with the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers, when they tried to add support for X.org 7.1, with some great new XGL features:
<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/</a lwn.net>
Fedora's decision was to leave out X.org 7.1 support to avoid problems like those experienced by some Ubuntu users. It has been speculated that NVidia and ATI will intentionally delay updating their Linux drivers until Microsoft can add similar XGL-like features into Vista.
Personally, I think Fedora's decision to delay the new features was wrong. Those Fedora users who chose to run closed source drivers made their choice, with full knowledge that they were making themselves dependent on closed source companies (not to mention friends of Microsoft) to provide timely driver updates. It is wrong to hold back features that Open Source Linux users could enjoy, in order to accomodate users who are choosing to pollute their systems with closed source drivers.
Finally, part of Microsoft's strategy is that, when problems occur, users will blame Linux, instead of the closed source drivers.
And that's exactly what has happened here. Even Joe Barr was fooled.
Thus, one of Microsoft's strategies has been to make Linux dependent on proprietary software and protocols, where Microsoft has some control (often working through proxies, to hide their actions).
Two examples of this are Microsoft's push for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net and DRM over the Internet.
Another is NVidia's and ATI's proprietary video drivers.
A few years ago, both NVidia, and (especially) ATI, were providing technical support for projects developing Open Source Linux drivers for their video cards.
Then, Microsoft contracted with NVidia to be a supplier for the XBox, following which NVidia hired up the NVidia driver developers, and stopped them from working on the Open Source driver, to work on closed source NVidia drivers instead. Likewise, when Microsoft contracted with ATI to be an XBox supplier, ATI stopped supplying technical information for the Open Source ATI driver project.
Since then, we have been inundated with astroturf making the ridiculous claim that there is no danger in using closed source drivers with Open Source Linux.
Now, those chickens have come home to roost.
The reason that there is a problem here is not Ubuntu's fault. On the contrary, it is the fault of the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers.
For starters, the closed source nature of those drivers makes it much harder to test and debug problems with using those drivers.
Plus, when new features depend on corresponding changes in the drivers, we are left with a choice between some users (the proprietary driver users) having compatibility problems, or leaving the new features out of Linux until the proprietary driver manufacturers manage to catch up.
Those sorts of situations -- delayed development, and usability problems -- are part of a strategy that Microsoft calls "putting the competition on the treadmill." It is just what Microsoft intended when they acted to push closed source NVidia and ATI drivers onto Linux.
Fedora has already run into problems with the closed source NVidia and ATI drivers, when they tried to add support for X.org 7.1, with some great new XGL features:
<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/</a lwn.net>
Fedora's decision was to leave out X.org 7.1 support to avoid problems like those experienced by some Ubuntu users. It has been speculated that NVidia and ATI will intentionally delay updating their Linux drivers until Microsoft can add similar XGL-like features into Vista.
Personally, I think Fedora's decision to delay the new features was wrong. Those Fedora users who chose to run closed source drivers made their choice, with full knowledge that they were making themselves dependent on closed source companies (not to mention friends of Microsoft) to provide timely driver updates. It is wrong to hold back features that Open Source Linux users could enjoy, in order to accomodate users who are choosing to pollute their systems with closed source drivers.
Finally, part of Microsoft's strategy is that, when problems occur, users will blame Linux, instead of the closed source drivers.
And that's exactly what has happened here. Even Joe Barr was fooled.
I must be pretty unlucky.
I just got a new monitor for my PC and booted it to find this problem. I thought it was a configuration problem with the new monitor and had been playing with the config for an hour until I found this article. Once I had upgraded, it worked first go !
I just got a new monitor for my PC and booted it to find this problem. I thought it was a configuration problem with the new monitor and had been playing with the config for an hour until I found this article. Once I had upgraded, it worked first go !
I will also try this method because I have the same problem (fatal error : no screens found) but I'm doubting that it will work because this article is quite old and I think that it's resolved with the updates of xorg. Just 2 questions : what is the actual release's numbers? (Joe bar spoke about 10.2,3,4. Now, what it is?) and has it a chance to work for me? (my s3 virge dx pci video card seems to be installed correctly)
Thanks and sorry for my english.
Thanks and sorry for my english.
Your post allowed me to repair my Ubuntu.
That said, I am happy I had Windows working in order to read that post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Patrick
<a href="http://www.idevlop.com/" title="idevlop.com">http://www.idevlop.com/</a idevlop.com>
That said, I am happy I had Windows working in order to read that post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Patrick
<a href="http://www.idevlop.com/" title="idevlop.com">http://www.idevlop.com/</a idevlop.com>
The downgrade fix was pulled from the thread on this once they established that updating to 10.4 would fix the problem.
The current fix can be found here: <a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=241254" title="ubuntuforums.org">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=241254</a ubuntuforums.org>
The current fix can be found here: <a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=241254" title="ubuntuforums.org">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=241254</a ubuntuforums.org>
the problem is 'in some hardware'. Distros need to have target hardware. Supporting the whole of the current hw spectrum properly is just impossible without vendors cooperation (which is unavailable right now).
Ubuntu xorg-server update breaks X:
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 78.86.141.175] on January 18, 2008 01:23 PM
none of the work-arounds work!!! cant seem to resolve this please help... tried all the other threds to no avail. This is doing my head in. PLEASE HELP
first system
p4 2.8
2gb ram
nvidia 8400gs
secound system
p4 3.4
2gb ram
nvidia 8600gt 512
first system
p4 2.8
2gb ram
nvidia 8400gs
secound system
p4 3.4
2gb ram
nvidia 8600gt 512
Ubuntu xorg-server update breaks X: "no screens found"
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 220.253.69.13] on January 19, 2008 10:50 PM
20th January 2008 and it did it again. The new xorg update killed my installation dead. They need to be far more careful in updates.
I've been saying Ubuntu is crap
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2006 08:56 AMThis is your typical open source BS - little or no money being spent on Q/A and testing. Just take what everybody else is using for free - slap it together and call it Ubuntu - whoohooo. Exactly what has ubuntu contributed back to Linux?
#