I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
video-intel.

First of all, I don't know what it does. I have a feeling it has
something to do with the display as it says its a display driver. My
display works just fine, so why do I need it? I've seen posts here before
where people complain about things going wrong with their systems after
they have installed the updates. How do I permanently cancel that
download?

In addition, my computer now runs slower now that I have updated from my
original download of the 7.04 version. Is that supposed to be good?

Al

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:

> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
> video-intel.
>
> First of all, I don't know what it does. I have a feeling it has
> something to do with the display as it says its a display driver. My
> display works just fine, so why do I need it? I've seen posts here before
> where people complain about things going wrong with their systems after
> they have installed the updates. How do I permanently cancel that
> download?

Go to Synaptic (System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager),
highlight the package in there, from the package menu select "lock version".

> In addition, my computer now runs slower now that I have updated from my
> original download of the 7.04 version. Is that supposed to be good?

Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from the
original install?


--
Some say that Pamela Anderson wouldn't be anybody without her tits.
That's simply not true, she'd be Paris Hilton
- Sarah Silverman

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:43:31 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:
>

<big snip>

>
> Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
> upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from
> the original install?

Yes, I did the original install with 7.04 and then did the upgrade to
7.10.

Al

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:28:55 +0000, Al wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:43:31 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:
>>
>>
> <big snip>
>
>
>> Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
>> upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from
>> the original install?
>
> Yes, I did the original install with 7.04 and then did the upgrade to
> 7.10.
>
> Al

I just installed 7.10 from scratch on a system with an ATI graphics
card and got the same Intel update notice. Installed it and nothing
bad happened. I'm guessing it's just part of the default xorg driver
set.

lazy me wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:28:55 +0000, Al wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:43:31 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>>
>>> Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
>>> upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from
>>> the original install?
>> Yes, I did the original install with 7.04 and then did the upgrade to
>> 7.10.
>>
>> Al
>
> I just installed 7.10 from scratch on a system with an ATI graphics
> card and got the same Intel update notice. Installed it and nothing
> bad happened. I'm guessing it's just part of the default xorg driver
> set.

I got it and I'm running nVidia on Ubuntu 7.10. No problems because of it.

Alias

* Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
> video-intel.
>
> First of all, I don't know what it does.

[...]


Check the details tab in synaptic.

--
David

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:

> * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>
>> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
>> video-intel.
>>
>> First of all, I don't know what it does.
>
> [...]
>
>
> Check the details tab in synaptic.

OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.

My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.

Good point!

But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
system profiler.

Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
why can't the "good" guys?

It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?

Al

Al wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:
>
>> * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>
>>> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
>>> video-intel.
>>>
>>> First of all, I don't know what it does.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> Check the details tab in synaptic.
>
> OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
> install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.
>
> My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
> him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
> or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
> kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
> might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
> only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.
>
> Good point!
>
> But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
> VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
> stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
> whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
> easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
> tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
> system profiler.
>
> Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
> why can't the "good" guys?
>
> It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
> is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
> low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?
>
> Al

Yes. You're over analyzing the whole thing. Why should it be such a big
issue that a particular package upgrate becomes available in the upgrate
manager? It's not uncommon for some motherboards to have an intel video
chipset and also have an add-on graphics card installed. If there's a
potential security problem with the intel drivers, sending out an update
isn't something that should be of such great concern.

Cheers.

--
The world can't afford the rich.

My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
BS any longer.

As a Complete Noobie to the whole linux thing and fighting my urge to give
up and go back to Windows (Eeeyh) but finally been rewared with a working
install of gusty gibbon (or whatever its called) using Nvidia drivers on a
toshiba SP2100 installed with ENVY and then hacking the xorg.conf file to
force it to use a custom EDID file, am now happily exploring the many
application that came with it.

However that not really relavent to this post so here goes. i suspect that
all these updates that are for hardware that are not present in your system
are possibly detected because we are using a generic kernel, which should
work on most common hardware configurations, i'm guessing that if one was to
build a custom kernel you would only get relavent upadates listed.

Might Be Completely wrong, But hey i'm still trying.

Regard Andy.

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fpcqub01j1o@news4.newsguy.com...
> Al wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:
>>
>>> * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>>> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
>>>> video-intel.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, I don't know what it does.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> Check the details tab in synaptic.
>>
>> OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
>> install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.
>>
>> My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
>> him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
>> or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
>> kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
>> might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
>> only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.
>>
>> Good point!
>>
>> But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
>> VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
>> stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
>> whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
>> easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
>> tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
>> system profiler.
>>
>> Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
>> why can't the "good" guys?
>>
>> It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
>> is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
>> low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Al
>
> Yes. You're over analyzing the whole thing. Why should it be such a big
> issue that a particular package upgrate becomes available in the upgrate
> manager? It's not uncommon for some motherboards to have an intel video
> chipset and also have an add-on graphics card installed. If there's a
> potential security problem with the intel drivers, sending out an update
> isn't something that should be of such great concern.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> The world can't afford the rich.
>
> My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
> BS any longer.

NoStop wrote:


....absolutely nothing of any importance...nothing!
Frank