emma peel:
> Nice page! It makes it much more clear than now, I think.
Thanks!
> sajolida:
>> I'm sending here for review a draft of a new page of known issues only
>> for graphics cards.
>>
>> This is related to the restructuring of our support pages that we
>> proposed with Cody on https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/support_page/
>> and triggered by the new error message when GDM fails to start (#14521).
>>
>> You can see the structure here:
>>
>> https://git.tails.boum.org/tails/diff/wiki/src/support/known_issues/graphics.mdwn?h=doc/15399-gdm-debugging
>>
>> I'd like the Foundations team and Help desk to have a look and comment
>> before I start migrating all the data we currently have in
>> /support/knowns_issues.mdwn.
>>
>> For example, I'm wondering:
>>
>> - Shall we advertise people to try the "Troubleshooting Mode"? Does it
>> help with graphics cards?
>
> It helps to boot on some cards when the driver is not working. But those users
> maybe can use a specific boot option to solve their hardware support problem.
Then I think that we should recommend using the "Troubleshooting Mode"
as a workaround for the graphics cards for which it makes a difference.
>> - Does it make sense to link to Redmine tickets? For example, #11095 for
>> Radeon HD was closed because we had nothing else to do but the problem
>> still exist.
>>
>> Is it worth making this information visible to users?
>
> Yes, hopefully we could fix old issues maybe, or close them as resolved.
I'll answer to this one on intrigeri's email.
>> Is it helpful to keep it hidden in an HTML comment like I did?
>
> I didn't saw that.
Search for "#12482" on
https://git.tails.boum.org/tails/tree/wiki/src/support/known_issues/graphics.mdwn?h=doc/15399-gdm-debugging.
>> - Is it worth keeping track of when each issue has been updated last?
>> Here I'm proposing to keep this information in an HTML comment.
>
> This would be a great information to have. Sometimes I look at the Tails
> version on the issue to have a similar information.
I'll answer to this one on intrigeri's email.
>> This is information that we can get from the Git history (I tried and
>> it takes a couple of minutes) but I thought that it might help
>> cleaning the page from now and then. I thought about doing this for
>> the other known issues pages as well.
>>
>> - It would be good to have names and IDs of graphics cards exactly as
>> they are displayed to people. Right now I bet that it's not the case
>> but the page will get better as people report errors.
>
> Yes. I agree.
Ok!
>> Are their ways for Technical writers and Help desk to complete or
>> verify this information? For example, could we answer questions like:
>>
>> - « How can I know the ID of "Radeon HD 8790M"? »
>
> I ask users many times to give me the output of lspci, and it also comes on WhisperBack
The ID (as in "[10de:0a6c]") is not given by lspci and cannot be found
easily from WhisperBack. But intrigeri answered my question, so I'm happy :)
>> - « What name is displayed to the users of "Radeon HD 8790M"? »
>
> I look this up on the Internet but sometimes it is difficult, specially when users
> tell you a 'laptop model' with several probable graphic cards.
I think we should use the exact name as reported from lspci in WhisperBack.
> Are you sure it is said 'graphics card'? I always thought it was 'graphic card'/'graphic cards'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_card
