On 16 Jun 2002, James A. Crippen wrote: >> xfs being a separate process, can do this job simultaneously >> while the X server continues to handle X requests. Also, xfs can >> handle multiple requests simultaneously. The result is improved >> interactive performance. > >I didn't say xfs was *bad*. I didn't question why it was included in >the distro. I just questioned why the default XF86Config shipped with >Red Hat distributions of around 6.2 or so never included a *fallback* >for when xfs failed to run. Making the X server totally dependent on >xfs means that if *anything* happens to the xfs process (like being >killed by an overzealous newbie user, or being misconfigured during >the installation process) then X no longer has fonts, and the user >completely loses. And for what appears to be an obscure reason with >no sensible error message.
I don't see how that is any different from the X server being misconfigured during the installation process or an overzealous newbie user killing the X server process itself. In all honesty xfs has not been a problem for us. Some people don't like it for their own reasons, and choose to disable it and configure their font paths manually in the X config file. That flexibility is there, and users can opt to use the X server instead if they wish. We don't prevent that or try to. >> The "could not open default font 'fixed'" error is caused by >> _many_ potential things. > >Yes, it could. But in my personal experience the distributions of Red >Hat 6.2, 6.1, and 6.0 all shipped with a broken configuration for xfs. I did not begin my employment at Red Hat until after Red Hat Linux 7.0 shipped, so I can't speak for any developmental issues in those releases. I can however say that I've used xfs since it was first included, and have had no problems with it that were specific to xfs being used. I wont claim that nobody else has not had smooth sailing either however. >I've installed 6.2 hundreds of times and every time xfs dies on the >first boot, due to a misconfiguration. This causes X to *not run* >until you either fix the configuration for xfs and get it running, or >you just hand-hack the default XF86Config to not use xfs. I haven't >installed 6.2 for some time now so I can't recall the exact error. It's entirely possible there is a problem there. Font configuration in general is a complex enough issue, and I've got to deal with fixing problems all the time so I'm aware of the various problems users have. These issues tend to not be related to xfs but rather to font configuration in general. Bad or missing fonts.scale or fonts.dir files, bad permissions on the files or dirs, and a variety of numerous other problems. The thing that bothers me about font configuration is that there is no one way of configuring it all that works for _everyone_ out there in _every_ language that is supported. This makes it complex to try to have one configuration that is manageable and maintainable that works in North America, Europe, Asia, etc. Fortunately Keith Packard's Xft and fontconfig are shining a bright light for everyone in the open source community now, and all of the problems with server side fonts are likely to vanish in the not distant future. >I made an educated guess that if he *just* installed Red Hat and >happened to be using 6.2 or similar then he's hitting the same >damned problem I've dealt with so many times. And since he >seemed to be a newbie the easiest solution for him is just to >*not use* xfs until he can figure out how to fix it. I don't know what the specific problem is without further details, so it's hard for me to comment. Again, I began here and took over XFree86 maintenance a few months after RHL 7.0 was released, and I've only modified the earlier packages minimally for erratum releases. I've never received many 6.2 bug reports, and don't recall getting 6.2 xfs reports. >> Troubleshooting the exact problem is the only way to find a proper >> solution, > >But I've seen this complaint from other people a lot and I guessed in >his case that he could quickly work around it. It's his problem to >troubleshoot, not mine. I'm not a help desk. But I happened to have >a hint for getting him *around* the problem which I wanted to offer. >He can figure out the rest on his own, I'm sure. And can decide >whether he wants to use xfs or not on his own as well. I didn't say >he shouldn't, just that it was probably where his problem lay. Hard to say without more information. >> Switching from xfs to using the X server implies that xfs is the >> problem, and it is a very rare occasion that that is the case. > >Except for Red Hat 6.x where it's *usually* the case because there's >something wrong with the way xfs is installed. I don't know what it >is because I've never taken the time to fix it. I usually install >XFree86 from scratch instead. This *always* fixes it. I've had to >make the same apology for other people installing 6.2 as well. Well I've not had that experience with it, however I certainly won't try to say that nobody has just because I haven't. I would try to help solve the problem if I had any idea what it was and/or could reproduce it however. >> >It smells like you probably have an older Hed Rat distribution, >> >> Please take your unprofessional anti-Red Hat distribution >> politics elsewhere, it is quite unfitting. > >I'm not anti-Red Hat. I've been using it since version 3.0.3. It's >my distribution of choice except for my desktop, where I build my own. >I don't like how the distributions have gotten a bit bloated lately, >and I especially don't like the debacle with a beta compiler being >distributed. But that's history. I'm anything if *not* anti-Red Hat. Perhaps I took what you said the wrong way then. Being subject to a lot of negativity from the community which I try to help out as much as I can, I tend to have somewhat of a hair trigger when reading comments like that at times. My apologies if this has been the case. >I'll thank you for being rude when I was trying to help someone. >Your rudeness comes off like a defensive Microsoft zealot. If I'm about as far as you can possibly get from meeting that label actually. >you could offer constructive comments for this user instead of >attacking me I'm sure people would appreciate it. I'm sure your >business doesn't appreciate you representing them in such an >impolite manner. Actually, Red Hat doesn't try to force me to speak in some controlled and programmed manner. Red Hat is not just an open source company, it is an "open" company as well, and the words spoken of its employees are the words of those employees and not of the company itself. I can unsubscribe from this address however and resubscribe under my personal email if it makes a difference to people. In either case I speak for myself and not for anyone else. If I'm ever making any official company statement on anything, it will be prefixed and/or suffixed with words labeling it as such, not as a personal response to a random email. At any rate, I think we both can understand and respect each other better now, and hope we can put this all to rest. No hard feelings. TTYL -- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
