From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 10 10:31:00 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D055837B404; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7750643FAF; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from oberman@es.net)
Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29])
        by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id MUA74016;
        Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:30:58 -0700
Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP
	id 62AD75D04; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Remington L." <cableboy@charter.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Remington L." <cableboy@charter.net> 
	<auto-000052404612@remt30.cluster1.charter.net> 
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:30:57 -0700
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Message-Id: <20030610173057.62AD75D04@ptavv.es.net>
cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORg
cc: freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Potentially **DANGEROUS** bug in 5.0 - 5.1 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware
	<freebsd-hardware.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hardware>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:31:01 -0000

What you are seeing is probably the most literal demonstration of bit
rot I can imagine. It sounds like the effect one gets from turning off
the drive to the LCD panel, but leaving the back-light on. It's very
odd looking.

Most likely something in XFree86 is telling the video card to do
something it does not like and, rather than drive the screen with
potentially damaging signals, it just turns off.

When you went from 4.8 to 5, did you hange versions of XFree86? Is the
XF86Config file changed? Sounds like something must have changed in
the XFree86 stuff that really upset the graphics system to the point it
simply turned off.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634