screen flashing in openSUSE 11.4

I installed openSUSE 11.4 to an Intel based microcomputer with Intel 855 chipset. The biggest problem is, that it cannot be used. If I click an icon, nothing happens. After a while the new window flashes and again after some seconds. If I wait some minutes, it might be, that I get the new window, but when clicking an icon in that window, flashing starts again, no matter if I install KDE or GNOME.

The new backround, vertical bars, is not very nice, when using the default resolution the bars are clearly distinct and visible, the whole impression is ugly.

I have been using SUSE as a server since last century and as I see it, the development of the UI has gone backward. Just think about e.g. (default) selecting submenys in the main meny of version 11.2, the classic is far more easier and faster to use.

(I have been programming UIs last 25 years.)

On 10/10/2011 11:26 AM, psammalisto wrote:
> I installed openSUSE 11.4 to an Intel based microcomputer with Intel 855
> chipset.

does your Intel based microcomputer meet the requirements of 11.4:
http://en.opensuse.org/Hardware_requirements

did you install the Intel provided video driver for Linux? if you have a
difficult time finding that driver, maybe you can find one that works
better here: http://tinyurl.com/37v9y7m

> (I have been programming UIs last 25 years.)

in *nix?


DD Caveat
openSUSE®, the “German Automobiles” of operating systems

oh shucks! i forgot to say -=welcome=- new poster…

if you give us a little more understanding of your level of experence
with Linux or other *nix-like systems we might better shape our answers…


DD
openSUSE®, the “German Automobiles” of operating systems

The computer is a special fanless, low power Pentium 1,5 GHz, 1 GB, 32 GB SSD, 4 ethernet connections.

I did not try to install new drivers to Suse because the first impression was not very promissing. Suse 12.2 works fine without any special drivers, although the resolution is a little bit low for a 24" monitor. I have tested lately also other Linux distros and new Centos 6.0 did not install at all. Scientific Linux 6.1 works fine. I tried to install to it those new Intel drivers, but always some packages were missing. I installed some 3 packages, but when that was not enough, I gave up.

I do not find myself as a Linux expert. On the other hand I would like to know more, but it is somehow difficult to learn (I have read several books). The main reason is that there are no logic in the commands. One hardly can guess what the command he/she needs could be or what are the arguments. Sometimes, to help remembering a command, I have tried to find the logic behind, but in many cases there is none or it is something odd. Where does “less” come from, I found that “less” is “more” (a proverb), hmm, easy to remember, but what does it do. There are maybe tens if not hundreds of commands beginning ya = yet another … pwd is not for passwod.

My main job has been making programs for industry and commerce. First 15 years I programmed embedded systems and mainframes, mainly real-time operating systems, none, RMX, VMS, VAX-ELN some Unix… From the beginning of 90’ I have used mainly Windows and Delphi. Linux I have used only as a web and mail server. Couple of years ago I returned back to basics and started to use embedded systems with no OS or RTOS. This new Linux system will collect information from the embedded computers, UI for those will be an Android tablet.

If possible I make my programs so that all is in one hierarchy tree, installation, copy the tree. This is not usually possible in Windows, but there are good installation programs and if the package is made carefully it works.

As I told my experience with Linux is not very deep. I have installed different distros and those programs needed for web and mail servers. Opposite to Windows, installing something to Linux is mainly hard. Some years I installed Apache, PHP, Mysql and Typo3, that took days. Bigest problem was with versions. Some needed some version of PHP, the other one some other, same with Apache.

The installation is not straight forward, same goes for problem solving. There are in the books explanations of the Linux directory structure, but one cannot count on that the files are there they should be according to the specifications. When installing an application, the files hardly are in the same place in all distribution, and so not there, where they should be according to the instructions of the application. How many sbins are there?

Some years ago I decided to make my Linux system simplier. First I installed “native” Linux and then Apache, PHP, Mysql and Typo3, all into their own directories under opt. I do not recall any more, if I had to install something else than starting routines to other directories, but anyway it was easy to move the applications to other computers.

I do not like monopolies so I try to use also other systems than Windows. Linux is free (and Finnish), but taking into account the needed work costs it is a lot more expensive than Windows, pity.

On 10/10/2011 05:26 PM, psammalisto wrote:
>
> From the beginning of 90’ I have used mainly Windows and Delphi.

so, 20 years of Windows experience and that all now makes sense…but,
linux commands and file structure does not make sense to you…well,
Windows does not make sense to me as i’ve basically not used it since 1995…

and, i guess if you and i had both moved to Apple in 90’s we would find
that both Linux and Windows made little sense…

> Opposite to Windows, installing something to Linux is mainly hard.

have you discovered YaST…generally it is so easy that it is amazing…

> I do not like monopolies so I try to use also other systems than
> Windows.

i don’t like monopolies at all…but, i don’t use window not because of
their business practices but because their product is inferior to most
of the others, and of course also to expensive to purchase and support…

> Linux is free (and Finnish), but taking into account the
> needed work costs it is a lot more expensive than Windows, pity.

well, true if you have 20 years of experience in a system which is so
senseless (from my viewpoint) then there is that “steep learning
curve” but when you catch us some you suddenly find a system which
once set up correctly just works and works and works…

instead of hopping from distro to distro trying to find one that works
just perfect for you, find one “fits” your needs and stick with it a
while…a long time ago an old man told me to think of every distro as
a different operating system (you know files in different places, etc
etc etc–there is NO standard that anyone making Linux must adhere
to…that is just the way it is…use what works for you…embrace the
freedom or stick with old Monopoly, your choice…

now, your hardware sounds more like a little stand alone server or
controller to collect industrial information to pass around the network,
or prompt industrial actions, or maybe serve as a firewall/router…and
as such it is was not really built to drive a large desktop
display…especially not one with the demanding graphics requirements
of 11.4 with either KDE or Gnome…or was it?

at any rate with no ability to get away from the embedded proprietary
Intel graphics hardware which is finely honed to peak with
Windows…well, then you are stuck with Old Costly…so, load up Win7
and have a ball…

on the other hand, if you wanna run Linux get a nice box with
nVidia…their driver works real nice…


DD
Caveat-Hardware-Software-
openSUSE®, the “German Automobiles” of operating systems

That sound similar to what I saw in the computer from which I am typing this reply. It has Intel 865 graphics.

Once I turned off desktop effects, the system became usable.

Logout from KDE (if you can).

Login again. But use the desktop chooser on the login screen to select KDE safe mode. I think that disables desktop effects for the session.

Then see if you can permanently disable desktop effects in the personal settings.