I thought of "X without config file" as a bad idea from day one - and each time I have to do something that is based on something not properly reported by hardware or not properly auto-detected by X it so totally proves me right.
Face it, neither are hardware manufacturers capable of adhering to their standards nor is X capable of reading my mind. On Wednesday 10 August 2011 21:09:35 Oliver Seitz wrote: > On 10.08.2011 20:16, Felix Miata wrote: > > On 2011/08/10 19:58 (GMT+0200) Oliver Seitz composed: > >> Felix Miata wrote: > >>> On 2011/08/10 14:15 (GMT+0200) Oliver Seitz composed: > >>>> Configuration of software is not done through conf files anymore, it > >>>> is done using hardware. If autodetection gives values you do not want, > >>>> you have to alter the hardware. > >>> > >>> I can't imagine people trying to configure multihead without .conf > >>> files. How's that supposed to work? > >> > >> I've been exaggerating a bit, I must confess... But, to keep things > >> straight, I really did multihead setup using xrandr in a startup script. > > > > You think mere mortals are going to find startup scripts, not to mention > > xrandr, easier to figure out than config files? > > No. I described this situation because it annoys me. I do not like it at > all. Nevertheless I have to cope with it in some way as I can't modify > the drivers. > > Greets, > Kiste > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K- w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@ b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx