Rikard Johnels wrote:
Is seems to me, reading from a lot of the new installations made on this list. The main problem ppl very often crash into is the graphics department. Not getting the right resolution, image of center, not being able to set LCD's etc. And it most often boils down to a bad xorg.conf being created by Sax. Lots of the solutions are "Hand hack this", "Run with these and that debug/switch", "copy old config to new" and so on.
My question/ observation is; Is this really how a professional utility should work? You need quite a bit of expertise to fix the graphics setup. Especially with the newer cards. Its not the clearest and easiest for newcomers to fix a graphical problem. And most of the time as all they want to get is the new and shiny desktop. Alot of ppl dont care whats under the hood. (And doesnt understand)
Time to take a closer look as to WHY Sax cant set things up w/o screwing it self? Not saying that Sax is a total piece of.. Its a fairly nice piece of software. It just doesnt reach the high SuSE standard we expect to see.
Just my 2 cents....
Here here Rikard with an additional ZAR 2c. I don't care how the system does what I want in the background as long as it gets done. I already know SuSE is better than the Redmond counterpain. Command line I am sure is fun, if you are that way inclined. I, and alot of others I'm sure, prefer the GUI to do what the command line does, without having to remember the host of command switches, or typing our fingers to the bone :).