On 02/12/14 12:32, RD Thrush wrote:
On 02/12/14 02:53, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:37 PM, RD Thrush wrote:
...
I didn't expect those perms to matter w/ Xorg -configure -keepPriv.
With the perms on /dev/drm[0-3] set so that you own them, what happens
when you don't use t
On 02/12/14 02:53, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:37 PM, RD Thrush wrote:
> ...
>> I didn't expect those perms to matter w/ Xorg -configure -keepPriv.
>
> With the perms on /dev/drm[0-3] set so that you own them, what happens
> when you don't use the -configure and -keepPriv
On 02/11/14 19:53, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:32:25AM -0500, RD Thrush wrote:
>> On 02/10/14 13:20, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
>>> On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok;
however, at 1024x768 r
On 02/12/14 03:01, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:37:30AM -0500, RD Thrush wrote:
>> On 02/11/14 19:45, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
> With a somewhat recent i7 d
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:37:30AM -0500, RD Thrush wrote:
> On 02/11/14 19:45, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> >> On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
> >>> With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok;
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:37 PM, RD Thrush wrote:
...
> I didn't expect those perms to matter w/ Xorg -configure -keepPriv.
With the perms on /dev/drm[0-3] set so that you own them, what happens
when you don't use the -configure and -keepPriv options?
(You don't say why you use -configure, so I
On 02/11/14 19:45, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
>> On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
>>> With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok;
>>> however, at 1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resoluti
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:32:25AM -0500, RD Thrush wrote:
> On 02/10/14 13:20, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> > On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
> >> With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok;
> >> however, at 1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resolutio
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
> > With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok;
> > however, at 1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resolution.
> > ctl-alt-keypad+ or - have no effec
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
> > With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok;
> > however, at 1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resolution.
> > ctl-alt-keypad+ or - have no effec
On 02/10/14 13:20, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
>> With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok; however,
>> at 1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resolution. ctl-alt-keypad+
>> or - have no effect on resolution. ctl-alt-
On 10 February 2014 13:11, RD Thrush wrote:
> With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok; however,
> at 1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resolution. ctl-alt-keypad+ or
> - have no effect on resolution. ctl-alt-backspace correctly reverts to text
> mode. I t
With a somewhat recent i7 desktop, using startx, X seems to run ok; however, at
1024x768 rather than the expected 1920x1200 resolution. ctl-alt-keypad+ or -
have no effect on resolution. ctl-alt-backspace correctly reverts to text
mode. I then tried Xorg -configure to look for hints to improv
13 matches
Mail list logo
