RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-06 Thread Sottek, Matthew J
>Fortunately XF86VidModeSetGammaRamp() and friends allow these values >to be altered by any application while the server continues to run. >This means that a configuration program can write the data to a file, >then have a simple user-mode app run as part of the start-up script >which reads the dat

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-05 Thread Mike A. Harris
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Sottek, Matthew J wrote: >>Absolutely nothing says that both can't co-exist. If the default >>tools try to allow configuration of everything, even some >>hardware specific things, they can try where possible and >>feasible to generalize these things, or in cases where that isn

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-05 Thread Andrew C Aitchison
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Tim Roberts wrote: > However, the UI you describe is just silly. There is NO real-world reason > to have a configuration widget that allows gamma setting on a > point-by-point basis. For gamma, a single exponent (perhaps one exponent > per primary) is the only thing that a UI

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Thomas Winischhofer
Tim Roberts wrote: On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:55:47 -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: It's 3 curves of 256 datapoints. Floating point or integer. What you have to assume is that every point on the curve is grabbable, either through a spline curve widget, or something like datapoint [123]^ red [ 45]

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Bryan W. Headley
Tim Roberts wrote: On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:55:47 -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: It's 3 curves of 256 datapoints. Floating point or integer. What you have to assume is that every point on the curve is grabbable, either through a spline curve widget, or something like datapoint [123]^ red [ 45]

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Tim Roberts
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:55:47 -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: > >It's 3 curves of 256 datapoints. Floating point or integer. What you >have to assume is that every point on the curve is grabbable, either >through a spline curve widget, or something like > >datapoint [123]^ red [ 45] green [ 23]

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Bryan W. Headley
Sottek, Matthew J wrote: What are you doing now? I assume this is a real product; what are you putting into the XF86Config file now? It was a hypothetical example. I don't know of a decent way to do it with XF86Config short of 256*3 Options. It's 3 curves of 256 datapoints. Floating point or in

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Sottek, Matthew J
>Absolutely nothing says that both can't co-exist. If the default >tools try to allow configuration of everything, even some >hardware specific things, they can try where possible and >feasible to generalize these things, or in cases where that isn't >possible, they can provide hardware specific c

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Mike A. Harris
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Sottek, Matthew J wrote: >>The thing is, a unified device-configuring front-end would be better >>than having every driver writer roll their own. (I mean, we can follow >>Windows if we want, but why incur development risk by developing what >>essentially is several versions

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Jon Frederick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 While I'm not a good enough programmer to pull this off myself, I have thought quite a bit about how we currently configure things on *nix boxes. Why don't you have a description file that comes with each driver that maps the options it supports to GUI

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-03 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:15:17AM -0700, Sottek, Matthew J wrote: > >The thing is, a unified device-configuring front-end would be better > >than having every driver writer roll their own. (I mean, we can follow > >Windows if we want, but why incur development risk by developing what > >essenti

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread David Dawes
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:46:53PM -0700, Sottek, Matthew J wrote: >>What are you doing now? I assume this is a real product; what are you >>putting into the XF86Config file now? > >It was a hypothetical example. I don't know of a decent way to do it >with XF86Config short of 256*3 Options. Data s

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread David Dawes
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:13:11AM -0700, Sottek, Matthew J wrote: >Let me start by saying this is at least 5 years overdue. Glad to see David >addressing this problem. These things only happen when someone cares enough to provide the resources necessary to make them happen. >I would like to sugg

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Sottek, Matthew J
>What are you doing now? I assume this is a real product; what are you >putting into the XF86Config file now? It was a hypothetical example. I don't know of a decent way to do it with XF86Config short of 256*3 Options. Data storage isn't really the issue. I could write a tool to write those optio

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Daniel Stone
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:34:42PM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: > Now, as to anyone who say, "eww, it's Gtk," or "it's Qt," or "I hate > Tk", I have only one thing to say to them: Athena Widgets. Jesus, no. The point of this is that it's meant to be *easy* and *simple*. This means that it shou

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Bryan W. Headley
Sottek, Matthew J wrote: You will never be able to create a GUI that covers everything that is configurable across a wide variety of vendor products... nor should you try. Not true. Look at the limited vocabulary you presently have in XF86Config: keywords, list-of-values, integers, bools. Bools

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Sottek, Matthew J
>> You will never be able to create a GUI that covers everything >>that is configurable across a wide variety of vendor products... >>nor should you try. >Not true. Look at the limited vocabulary you presently have in >XF86Config: keywords, list-of-values, integers, bools. Bools map to >radio bu

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Bryan W. Headley
Sottek, Matthew J wrote: The thing is, a unified device-configuring front-end would be better than having every driver writer roll their own. (I mean, we can follow Windows if we want, but why incur development risk by developing what essentially is several versions of the same thing?) Windows

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Alex Deucher
Speaking of multi-display, has intel done any work on adding dualhead support for xfree86 for the i830/45 chips or released docs so someone else could do it? Just curious... Alex --- "Sottek, Matthew J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would advocate a config system that has a basic set of wel

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Sottek, Matthew J
>The thing is, a unified device-configuring front-end would be better >than having every driver writer roll their own. (I mean, we can follow >Windows if we want, but why incur development risk by developing what >essentially is several versions of the same thing?) Windows does it the way it do

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Bryan W. Headley
David Dawes wrote: On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:52:58AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: David Dawes wrote: On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: David Dawes wrote: The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration experience for users is now av

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread David Dawes
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:52:58AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: >David Dawes wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: >> >>>David Dawes wrote: >>> The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration experience for users is now avai

RE: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Sottek, Matthew J
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration experience for users is now available. Some details about it, and a link to the source patch can be found at <http://www.x-oz.com/autoconfig.ht

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Bryan W. Headley
David Dawes wrote: On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: David Dawes wrote: The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration experience for users is now available. Some details about it, and a link to the source patch can be found at

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread David Dawes
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: >David Dawes wrote: >> The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration >> experience for users is now available. Some details about it, and a link >> to the source patch can be found at

Re: Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-02 Thread Bryan W. Headley
David Dawes wrote: The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration experience for users is now available. Some details about it, and a link to the source patch can be found at . Have you looked at the Hal library, over at freedesktop.o

Starting XFree86 without an XF86Config file

2003-10-01 Thread David Dawes
The first part of the work I'm doing to improve the XFree86 configuration experience for users is now available. Some details about it, and a link to the source patch can be found at . The goal of this first stage is to make it possible to start the XFree86 se