This may be a stupid question. But are you using grub and have nomodeset? Sometimes DE’s have problem with xorg setting monitor settings, which you then half to override somewhere in the init of the DE
"I have the same issue and have the following workaround:
It is possible to set the resolution from a command line using ‘xrandr’. Running just xrandr allows you to see the current resolution and the other valid resolutions.
From a command line you can run ‘xrandr -s 1024x768’ and the screen in VMware will reset to that size!
You can even set this at KDE startup by doing the following:
click KDE start icon
select System Settings
select Startup and Shutdown
click Add Program…
enter ‘xrandr -s 1024x768’ in the text box
be sure the “run in Terminal” checkbox is checked
follow the rest of the prompts to set it as a startup command.
The next time you log in, it will start at 800x600 but at the end of the login you will see the screen resize!
while i appreciate the effort, this has no effect on my issue. also maybe worth noting, i am using grub but not nomodeset. i toggled it on just to see if it would do anything but the problem persists.
if you look at my xrandr output on the first boot, the main problem is that it cannot see any other mode except 640x480 and running xrandr --output DP-0 --mode 1920x1080 fails. i cannot change it using plasma’s display settings gui or xrandr in any way - the only way i know how to get access to the other resolution/rate settings of that monitor is by rebooting.
It kinda sounds like some kind of driver issue to me. The fact that it doesn’t detect modes other than a single super basic one sound like not having a proper graphics driver. However, I have no clue why it would work again on reboot and maybe even more importantly, why the other monitor does have a proper mode detected. I wouldn’t expect that if the driver was messed (you would expect all monitors to be assigned some basic mode).
It may work to swap drives, but you should definitely minimize physical swapping if possible. Pick where the drives will live, then try to stick with that (or be ready to do some troubleshooting). Create a Linux install media for your chosen distro, put the empty drive in the laptop, and boot from the install media. Most distros come with a graphical installer, so you should be able to navigate from there.
Also, for the best experience, the drive inside the laptop should be your daily driver, anyway. USB-C is great, but you’ll have the best I/O with the slot on the mainboard, which is both physically closer to the CPU and likely uses NVMe. If you plan on making Linux your daily driver, that should be the drive in the laptop.
Lastly, try booting from a live ISO where you can give it a test run before you install. Might identify any glaringly obvious issues with your hardware before you go through the trouble, though not all distros have live media.
Good luck, OP! I’m right there with you, making the switch to Linux, though I’m just going to relegate Windows to a VM.
Ah, yes, Linux around the turn of the century. Let’s see…
GPU acceleration? In your dreams. Only some cards had drivers, and there were more than 2 GPU manufacturers back then, too… We had ATi, nVidia, 3dfx, Cirrus, Matrox, Via, Intel… and almost everyone held their driver source cards close to their chest.
Modems? Not if they were “winmodems”, which had no hardware controller, the CPU and the Windows driver (which was always super proprietary) did all the hard work.
Sound? AC’97 software audio was out of the question. See above. You had to find a sound blaster card if you wanted to get audio to work right.
So, you know how modern linux has software packages? Well, back then, we had Slackware, and it compiled everything gentoo style back then. In addition, everyone had a hardon for " compiling from source is better"… so your single core Pentium II had to take its time compiling on a UDMA66-connected hard drive, constrained with 32 or 64 MB RAM. Updating was an overnight procedure.
RedHat and Debian were godsends for people who didn’t want to waste their time compiling… which unfortinately was more common even so, because a lot of software was source only.
Oh, and then MP3 support was ripped out of RedHat in Version 9 iirc, the last version before they split it into RHEL and Fedora. RIP music.
As for Linux on a Mac, there was Yellowdog, which supported the PPC iMacs and such. It was decently good, but I had to write my own x11 monitor settings file (which I still have on a server somewhere, shockingly, I should throw it on github or somewhere) to get the screen to line up and work right.
Basically, be glad Linux has gone from the “spend a considerable amount of time and have programming / underhood linux knowledge to get it working” to “insert stick, install os, start using it” we have now.
That only matters if there’s anything to optimize by source compilation. If the program doesn’t have optimization features in the source, it’s wated time and energy.
I’m trying to upload a picture of what it looks like on my phone but it won’t work. The lines don’t connect between characters. The line in the e seems to either be missing or not present at all. The k is barely visible and I didn’t notice it at first.
That said… I do with there was a way to do this easily in more programs without searching online for “Unicode font converter” to be able to get 𝖘𝖙𝖚𝖋𝖋 𝖑𝖎𝖐𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖘.
No, it’ll just be yet another pile of bloat that’ll separate IBM distros and their followers (rhel, fedora, centos, debian, arch) from the rest (alpine, void, gentoo, devuan, *BSD).
Btw can RH as the biggest contributor to systemd make it paid like it did with RHEL? Then it’s going to be the death of the free and independent Linux desktop for quite a while.
They’ve only made it harder for other parties to freely benefit from RHEL’s hard work
True but they still can find something to hurt everyone. Not like I think it will happen but it is a problem with centralization and a company being behind a big and important product.
The bold parts include a false claim; i.e. Red Hat made RHEL paid.. So it’s perfectly possible to include a lie, piece of misinformation and/or straight up FUD within a question.
True but they still can find something to hurt everyone. Not like I think it will happen but it is a problem with centralization and a company being behind a big and important product.
I agree with you that Red Hat is indeed way too powerful in this realm. Hence, there will inevitably always be the fear that they might (somehow) misuse their power. So far, they’ve been mostly benevolent and I hope it will stay that way. There’s no fault at being cautious, but this should never lead us towards toxic behavior.
The bold parts include a false claim; i.e. Red Hat made RHEL paid..
Isn’t it? And for distro devs access to the source code is the only thing that matters. I am quite sure it is paid.
There’s no fault at being cautious, but this should never lead us towards toxic behavior.
I agree but I think you are the toxic one here. You boldly accuse a kinda new Linux user that asks a question in sharing misinformation and being toxic. I kinda get the first part but the second? You either don’t know what toxicity is or you’re just being toxic.
No-cost RHEL is accessible for individuals or small teams up to 16 devices. RHEL is paid for enterprises and businesses because of its support; which also includes (exclusive) articles and documentation.
You made it seem as if you were regurgitating the common line of misinformation when last year Red Hat changed how access to RHEL’s source code worked.
That regurgitated statement is misinformation. Besides that event, which actually didn’t make RHEL paid, I’m unaware of Red Hat retroactively changing a formerly free service to cost money instead.
And for distro devs access to the source code is the only thing that matters.
Do you mean the people working on Oracle Linux, AlmaLinux OS and/or Rocky Linux? Or did you actually primarily imply others? If so, could you elaborate?
but I think you are the toxic one here.
😅. Sorry, this is just not very productive. But, I will try to be more careful with the language I use when communicating with you 😉.
You boldly accuse a kinda new Linux user that asks a question in sharing misinformation
If, with your earlier statement, you meant the whole RHEL source code fiasco from last year, then that’s plain misinformation. And if you share that, then that’s sharing misinformation.
I prefer open conversation in which we can communicate directly. If you’re sensitive to that, then I will abstain from doing so when I’m interacting with you.
and being toxic.
At worst, I only implied it. At best, it’s a general advice directed towards anyone that happens to read it. To be clear, I didn’t intend to attack you. So no need to be offended. Nor should you take it personally.
Finally, as this comment of yours clearly shows, you’re at least somewhat susceptible to misunderstand the writing of others. Ain’t we all to some degree? Though…, (perhaps) some more than others. Regardless, likewise, without trying to offend you or whatsoever, I would like to propose the idea that you might have jumped to conclusions that you didn’t have to necessarily.
If IBM makes redhat do something that greedy and stupid (it’d be more likely to happen with a distribution like fedora or centos than userland components), we have plenty of existing infrastructure to fall back on.
(it’d be more likely to happen with a distribution like fedora or centos than userland components
I mean, if they make an actual workstation distro and kill systemd’s real FOSS nature, everyone else will have to spend some time rebuilding their distros with other init systems. That’ll be quite a sabotage.
You are not wrong. IBM management paralleled in the same cash-grab and exit C-suite functions that has consumed Redhat. That is why the merger happened.
Soon, Purple Hat should be charging for systemd and hopefully other corpos and organizations will move back to sanity.
Unless otherwise noted, the systemd project sources are licensed under the terms and conditions of LGPL-2.1-or-later (GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later).
New sources that cannot be distributed under LGPL-2.1-or-later will no longer be accepted for inclusion in the systemd project to maintain license uniformity.
I can understand critism of systemd for its tools only working with itself and not with any other Unix tools. But it’s absolutely a conspiracy theory to think they’d want to charge for systemd. Though I do agree that if someone was charging for systemd (which they can’t because its open source), open source alternatives would pop up.
RedHat is not restricting access to any upstream project. They package things in extremely stable form, which means they need to manage like all the software themselves and do tons of backports, as normally software just releases new versions.
They restrict access to these packages.
So yes, their 5 years old systemd with backported security fixes may be restricted. But not the normal systemd you can install anywhere.
No, it’s licensed under the LGPL, which means source code can be freely distributed and distros would continue to package it for free no matter how hard Redhat tried to paywall it.
And neither Arch, nor Ubuntu, nor Debian, nor OpenSUSE, nor any other distro using systemd belongs to IBM.
Where did I say they belong to IBM?
Sure, the centralization is pretty damn bad. But for example replacing sudo is needed.
We already have doas, which is such a simple codebase I’d have a hard time imagining it contains a bug that leads to setuid being a problem. run0’s codebase size on the other hand…
systemd nightmare needs to end. Too many broken garbage from malicious actors within the opensource community.
Just as an experiment, get every distro to have at least 2 or 3 SysVInit / runit / rc.init alternatives, and you will see a MASS Migration back to SysVInit. Bash/shell script init functions were really dead simple and almost unbreakable/hackerproof.
Systemd really needs to be thrown in the garbage dumps of history so we can finally have a UNIX-like boot back.
Corpo sabotage of opensource. So many community projects are under the thumb of corpo insiders. It was a “cash-grab” a way to shoehorn and takeover an essential but mostly unchanged and stable Init system. And they shimmed that into everything they could ram it into with no options or alternatives.
What exactly did companies gain from making Linux distros switch over to systemd?
If anything, the switch ment a loss of productivity as their staff needed to relearn stuff, not to mention loss of technical knowledge as there would be others who simply would not accept the change and leave the company when the change happened.
This means increased costs, either due to retraining, or due to needing to hire new staff which is expensive.
Meanwhile, I can’t see anything that would mean that companies would earn or even save enough money to make it worth the effort of making distros implement systemd.
Ok so doing it for direct gain seems to be out, but you mention “corpo sabotage of opensource”, I can’t really see that either, a developer won’t move a successful Linux project to Windows, AIX, Solaris, Darwin or HP-UX just because of a move to systemd.
So even indirect gain seems to be out, so “corpo sabotage” doesn’t really seem plausible.
But, I may be wrong, please, tell us how exactly a move to systemd has benefited companies enough that it would make the effort and expense to make a distro move to sytemd, let alone a majority of distros, worth it.
But, I may be wrong, please, tell us how exactly a move to systemd has benefited companies enough that it would make the effort and expense to make a distro move to sytemd, let alone a majority of distros, worth it.
you’re putting to much thought in something that even the guy who you’re asking didn’t
As someone who writes bash scripts, fuck no, this is a terrible language and it shouldn’t be used for anything more complex than sticking two programs together.
Also, parallelism goes right out of the window.
Maybe you’d convince me with a real programming language.
Any time I see a grognard seriously suggest going back to bash for anything exceeding 10 lines of code it makes me very happy none of them are in control.
For clarity, because the obnoxious ones out there didn’t get it, this refers to how Arch, Debian, Fedora and most other distros just default to systemd and hence can (and probably will) make use of run0. While, on the other hand, distros like Alpine, Artix, Devuan, Void and others (including *BSD-systems) will not. For distros with no defaults (e.g. Gentoo), the user gets to decide.
If you make users sign in too much, they will just make their passwords short and easy to remember, even 24hrs is too much and people bitch about it all the time, especially since we have password managers enforced, meaning every time they need to Auth they need to Auth into their system, Auth into their password manager, copy the password, auth into their phone, look at the 2FA code and type that in.
Doing this every day just to open email is understandably fucking enraging even to me as a security “”“engineer”“”/analyst/${bullshitblueteamemailreaderjob}
Press it harder and they will use simple passwords that will inevitably be passed through to something external (e.g. cockpit which even I can bruteforce) or reused somewhere at some point, and then someone just has to get lucky once and run whatever run0 sudo su <reverse shell bs here> to bypass all protections.
Just a thought, and it seems less applicable to your situation given the software experience you’ve described, but I’ve had this happen to me with a faulty display cable. Have you tried a spare one?
that’s worth checking - i don’t have a spare DP cable on hand to test, but you may be onto something.
previously, i tried unplugging and replugging the cable on the PC end, as well as trying other ports, to no avail.
just now, i tried replugging the end plugged into the monitor a few times and was able to reproduce the resolution issue a single time. this honestly just confuses me more though, because why would it happen only one time out of several cycles doing the exact same thing?
i’m gonna get another cable just to be sure but that wont be for a few days at least.
The “we know better than you” attitude Microsoft has. They’ve very slowly removed more and more power user functionality. Almost every customization has to be hacked in with a group policy or registry edit now, or by outright replacing explorer.exe
Although to be fair, WSL fixes that issue to a big degree. Maybe even better than OSX, since you get a real Linux with real userspace. WSL(2) might be the only really cool feature Microsoft added to Windows, that actually brings value for the user.
Just want to say good luck. Someone brought me one of these and asked to make it ready to be their university laptop in 2013. I worked real hard not to laugh because money was obviously tight but I just told them to return the pos to Amazon.
Because every time I’m reminded the underlying OS exists it’s always something negative.
On windows: Forced restarts and updates that take over 5x as long as my Linux (or FreeBSD build), ui that constantly undoes what I customized, ads and preinstalled malware essentially like candy crush even on builds from Microsoft directly, worse performance with a much higher number of crashes under load on my current box, and no auto login/name any simple customization without screwing around with registry editor to name just the simple things. More advanced problems include no hypervisor built in to the home version, everything is pay to unlock features my Linux install does for free, no zfs software raid for storage safekeeping, most fixes when I do have errors involve googleing cryptic hex codes and being told to run fsck/chdsk as the only solution for often times hours of searching before finally finding the actual answer - not to mention most other fixes being to download a library/binary of the sketchiest sounding website ever that i can’t verify isn’t a virus.
On linux or even FreeBSD which took a bit to get installed to my liking i may have put work in up front but its like 3 hours at most of my time for 6+ years of stability and proper functioning to avoid all of the above plus no microsoft telemetry etc. I switched when i first tried Vista and even today every time i have to use Microsoft’s horrific excuse for an OS it is heartburn inducing.
I don’t know if I “hate” Windows but more like “I’m done dealing it.” I might come and use it time to time, but only when absolutely necessary, and the mental capacity to remove things I don’t need and make sure its removed.
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.