|
General software and network General OS-independent software and network questions, X11, MTA, routing, etc. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
I found very interesting article on this very interesting and informative thread:
http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/xser...-ols2004-html/ |
|
|||
My problem is, they are going to take away xorgconfig, which always worked for me flawlessly. Just a few steps and you are done. It was so simple, so easy.
|
|
||||
Why is it being removed? It also worked very well for me too.
(Recently I needed to configure X on a Ubuntu system, it didn't come with xorgconfig, I used a FreeBSD install and xorgconfig on that to make a xorg.conf for the Ubuntu system ...)
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. |
|
||||
From http://archive.netbsd.se/?ml=xwin-di...-03&t=10009533
Quote:
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. |
|
|||
I used those tools tons. Not everyone uses Gnome or KDE where you tweak the settings in a pretty gui. So I have to pray X -configure gets it right or it's manually tweaking xorg.conf except in Ubuntu/Debian, they don't use that kind of file anymore. I have no idea what they use now.
It look a lot of work to get X going on my NetBSD 5.0 box. It would have been a lot easier if I had xorgconfig at my disposal. |
|
||||
That's just what I was thinking, phoenix. I was very happy to find X -configure, as xorgconfig (xf86config it was then!) and such were just so annoying! X -configure, then tweak, just worked so much better.
Maintaining a second rate, largely unused tool like xorgconfig was work that did not need to be done. Thanks for the memories, but it's time you retired. The rest of Xorg's missmanagement, however - that is another story!
__________________
The only dumb question is a question not asked. The only dumb answer is an answer not given. |
|
||||
For one it is i386 and amd64 specific. Have you ever configure X on sparc64. platform. Apparently not because X -configure doesn't exist on sparc64
IMHO if X -configure works, it works really well. If it doesn't work which is often the case with older laptops alternative is writing xorg.conf file from scratch by hand. That has never been the case with xorgconfig. Note also that xorgcfg was depreciated earlier. |
|
|||
I was once a strange person who used xorgcfg and xorgconfig, they died.. I'm very happy.
X -configure or Xorg -configure should at least create a basic xorg.conf file you can play with, does it not at least do that on non-i386/amd64 architectures? Other supported OpenBSD architectures have default configuration files available, you don't have to construct it from scratch.. or at least, you shouldn't have to. A README document exists on OpenBSD that you can use to learn about X on your platform, it's always /usr/X11R6/README. I don't think DDC support in Xorg is restricted to i386/amd64, but if it is.. most monitors have a label on the back of them, laptop displays might be a little harder.. but X has default Vert/Horiz settings now that will give you at least 800x600 on a VGA monitor now. |
|
||||
Quote:
/usr/X11R6/README. Actually until year or two years ago configuring X server on sparc64 was far easier than on i386 and amd64. I was just trying to make a point why some people have a hard time getting used to X -configure. Bottom line xorgcfg and xorgconfig are dead peaces of code so they should be removed. I am just very afraid about the direction in which X is moving (HAL crap for one). |
|
||||
I guess the decision to deprecate xorgconfig is debatable ... I find it useful on occasion, I also use X -configure but that doesn't always work as well.
xorgconfig is useful for making a generic configuration, I guess a (sane/generic) default in /usr/local/share/examples/ will also do.
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. |
|
||||
Wasn't xorgcfg the graphical configuration utility? It always confused the hell out of me and I waws never able to figure it out ...
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. |
|
|||
X -configure never worked for me. It'd get the driver right but the screen resolutions were so out of whack it gave me headaches. Then I had to go and track down PrefferedMode and put that in, DefaultDepth, etc. xorgconfig worked correctly every single time.
|
|
||||
I agree with you. Setting up a VESA compliant generic config is a snap with the text configurator when needed, such as when X -configure creates an unworkable xorg.conf.
Of course, all of these complaints/concerns/whines/gripes/rants won't have any impact; they're not directed to the xorg -at- freedesktop.org mailing list. |
|
|||
Maybe I'm old school (no!) but I hand-crafted a config file back in the xf86/4.x days. I've used that one ever since, with a few minor modifications (for example, with xinerama or not).
|
|
|||
I am starting to save my xorg.conf from my computers now so I don't have to deal with the new pain they're bringing on.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Installing Xorg | NetBSD | NetBSD Installation and Upgrading | 20 | 9th June 2009 02:22 PM |
Xorg installation | LordZ | OpenBSD Installation and Upgrading | 10 | 23rd November 2008 05:52 PM |
Is xorg necessary....... | rex | FreeBSD General | 10 | 19th October 2008 03:05 PM |
xorg bug? | enterhaken | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 9 | 17th July 2008 02:38 PM |
Xorg sluggishness | tanked | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 2 | 17th May 2008 08:10 PM |