Hi Michel!
Can you post or move you conversation with Eich to this list?
It's interesting for me too ...
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 19:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > In other words, all the work involving the Video card is already done.
> > > > >
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 19:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > In other words, all the work involving the Video card is already done.
> > >
> > > Now you are wrong. :)
> > >
> > > The X server disables video devices it doesn't use.
> >
> > DOH! That seems like a really dumb Idea. Is it easy to mak
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 19:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > In other words, all the work involving the Video card is already done.
> > > >
> > > > Now you are wrong. :)
> > > >
> > > > The X server disables video devices it doesn't use.
> > >
> > > DOH! That seems like a really dumb Idea. Is
> > > So, as I already said, I think some kind of serialization of video
> > > device accesses is needed between the multiple X servers.
> >
> > So who would be qualified to attempt such a thing?
> > Who do we have to beg ? :)
>
> Well, I'm still hoping that perhaps some XFree Xpert (this is the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 6:17 am, Bharathi S wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I saw a demo of Linux + XFree86 4.1.0
> > > with 4 DISPLAY( Mon,KB, mouse).
> >
> > Yeah, I have that working too. But next time you see it, try
On Mon, 27 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I saw a demo of Linux + XFree86 4.1.0
> > with 4 DISPLAY( Mon,KB, mouse).
> >
> Yeah, I have that working too. But next time you see it, try
> switching to a console, or running a DGA app... and then run fast.
> :-)))
Yes i will try :-)
w
> > So, as I already said, I think some kind of serialization of video
> > device accesses is needed between the multiple X servers.
>
> So who would be qualified to attempt such a thing?
> Who do we have to beg ? :)
Well, I'm still hoping that perhaps some XFree Xpert (this is the
right mailing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> So, as I already said, I think some kind of serialization of video
> device accesses is needed between the multiple X servers.
So who would be qualified to attempt such a thing?
Who do we have to beg ? :)
>> I saw a demo of Linux + XFree86 4.1.
> I saw a demo of Linux + XFree86 4.1.0
> with 4 DISPLAY( Mon,KB, mouse).
>
> All USB KBs are connected to a MiniUSB Hub and Hub is
> connected to machine, And USB mouses also connected in
> similar way.
Yeah, I have that working too. But next time you see it, try
switching to a console
> > > > In other words, all the work involving the Video card is already done.
> > >
> > > Now you are wrong. :)
> > >
> > > The X server disables video devices it doesn't use.
> >
> > DOH! That seems like a really dumb Idea. Is it easy to make it not disable
> > the other cards? Would that gum up
> > > In other words, all the work involving the Video card is already done.
> >
> > Now you are wrong. :)
> >
> > The X server disables video devices it doesn't use.
>
> DOH! That seems like a really dumb Idea. Is it easy to make it not disable
> the other cards? Would that gum up other stuff?
I
Hello all,
I saw a demo of Linux + XFree86 4.1.0
with 4 DISPLAY( Mon,KB, mouse).
All USB KBs are connected to a MiniUSB Hub and Hub is
connected to machine, And USB mouses also connected in
similar way.
At the time booting, they started 4 GDM.
Each Display having separate Conf
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 19:44, Trent Whaley wrote:
> On May 24, 2002 10:12 am, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 19:08, Trent Whaley wrote:
> > > >From `man 5 XF86Config`:
> > >
> > > DEVICE SECTION
> > > ...
> > >BusID "bus-id"
> > > ...
> > > In other words, all the work inv
On May 24, 2002 10:12 am, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 19:08, Trent Whaley wrote:
> > >From `man 5 XF86Config`:
> >
> > DEVICE SECTION
> > ...
> >BusID "bus-id"
> > ...
> > In other words, all the work involving the Video card is already done.
>
> Now you are wrong. :)
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> There is no accelleration in fbdev.
But will there be? Is it possible?
btw, whats GGI or whatever it is?
JohnFlux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE87ncYoRvfZQkd7qoRAqxcAKC1Bh9Ruw5Seg0INPkC6W5DChLsSACgoRWd
u
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 20:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Are you aware of the linuxconsole project at
> > > linuxconsole.sourceforge.net, looks like this kind of thing is included
> > > in thier plans. Stuff is already getting merged into the 2.5 development
> > > kernels.
>
> Hmmm... OK, but
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 19:08, Trent Whaley wrote:
>
> >From `man 5 XF86Config`:
>
> DEVICE SECTION
> ...
>BusID "bus-id"
> This specifies the bus location of the graphics card. For PCI/AGP
>cards, the bus-id string has the form PCI:bus:device:func
> tion (e
>
> Hmmm... OK, but this gives us only the VT's, keyboards and mice - the
> video problem is the same, isn't it? That is, unless we want to use
> the fbdev, losing all acceleration and support for many cards. Or am
> I wrong - is there some acceleration in the framebuffer and its X
> driver?
You
> > Are you aware of the linuxconsole project at
> > linuxconsole.sourceforge.net, looks like this kind of thing is included
> > in thier plans. Stuff is already getting merged into the 2.5 development
> > kernels.
Hmmm... OK, but this gives us only the VT's, keyboards and mice - the
video proble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> You would be correct, unless someone has written an X server with a VNC
> Server built in.
Hmm.. have there been any attempts at this?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE87iT9oRvfZQkd7qoRAhvKAJ4tJMMEQcFAB4XPR
...
> > > I.e. two ppl share a desktop. ...
>>
> > Run one VNCServer so two people can view it ...
>
> Excellent.
>
> Now, can anyone see a need for two cursors (or seperate keyboards etc) on
> one physical display?
When using a pen/tablet input device with drawing software and using a mouse
for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 24 May 2002 1:10 am, Trent wrote:
> > 2) Some way for one unix user, but two human users to use the machine.
> > I.e. two ppl share a desktop. I would like this so that I can work on
> > one half one monitor, and gf on other monitor, then i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Are you aware of the linuxconsole project at
> linuxconsole.sourceforge.net, looks like this kind of thing is included
> in thier plans. Stuff is already getting merged into the 2.5 development
> kernels.
Several years ago (jeez, that long.. how ti
On Thu, 23 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think a better way would be to use only one instance of XFree, have
> it handle multiple monitors (that already works just fine!) WITHOUT
> Xinerama, and add more event queues, each for one screen/user. And of
> course, add support for multiple (US
<< Quotes come from several messages on this thread.
> The way I see is providing multiple event queues, one for each user
> (=screen, or even set of screens), and attach one keyboard and one
> mouse to each queue. And make one mouse cursor for each queue. I'm
> probably missing something importa
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > how hard would it be to add more keyboards and mice to XFree, each
> > > > delivering events to a different screen, thus enabling a full local
> > > > multiuser setup? Is there any reason why this couldn't be implemented?
> > >
>
> Are
On Thu, 23 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nicer? I don't think so. What's cheaper, smaller, easier - a VGA and a
> monitor, or a case, power supply, mainboard, CPU, memory, ethernet,
> the electricity it eats, the noise it generates, the cables it needs,
> a VGA and a monitor? Of course, bot
> > > how hard would it be to add more keyboards and mice to XFree, each
> > > delivering events to a different screen, thus enabling a full local
> > > multiuser setup? Is there any reason why this couldn't be implemented?
> >
> > This question has come up every month or so as far back as I can r
> > how hard would it be to add more keyboards and mice to XFree, each
> > delivering events to a different screen, thus enabling a full local
> > multiuser setup? Is there any reason why this couldn't be implemented?
>
> This question has come up every month or so as far back as I can remember.
On Thu, 23 May 2002, John Tapsell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 22 May 2002 9:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello Xperts,
> >
> > how hard would it be to add more keyboards and mice to XFree, each
> > delivering events to a different screen, thus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 22 May 2002 9:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Xperts,
>
> how hard would it be to add more keyboards and mice to XFree, each
> delivering events to a different screen, thus enabling a full local
> multiuser setup? Is there any rea
Hello Xperts,
how hard would it be to add more keyboards and mice to XFree, each
delivering events to a different screen, thus enabling a full local
multiuser setup? Is there any reason why this couldn't be implemented?
Vaclav Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IDAS, s.r.o.http://www.idas.cz
___
32 matches
Mail list logo
