(Adding submitter back into cc.) Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> (2013-11-25): > Let me try to translate the complaint into your terminology. > > I think he's complaining that the installer gets X configuration right > for its own use, but wrong for the installed system, where apparently X > gets it wrong, > > There's some plausibility to the claim that the installed system > *should* be able to get things as right as the installer. > Maybe this isn't as much an installer problem than an installed systen > problemm. Presumably whatever code the installer uses at install > time should also be part of X, or whatever setup happens at boot > time. > > It' a bit ironic that the complaint should be against the piece of code > that actually does get it right, but I guess that's life.
d-i uses fbdev (on linux, vesa on kfreebsd), which is generic but not efficient at all. The same could be used in the installed system, but X uses whatever is more suitable (usually: intel, radeon, or nouveau). They tend to do a lot more things, to have a huge codebase, and to have bugs (and/or trigger kernel-side bugs). Get a bug reported there, done: http://x.debian.net/howto/report-bugs.html Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
