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
___
-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
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
> > 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.
> > > 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
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
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
<< 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, 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
-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
-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
...
> > > 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
> 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
> > 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
>
> 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
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
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
-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 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. :)
>
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
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
> > > 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
> > > > 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
> 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
-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.
> > 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
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
-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
> > > 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
>
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
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
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.
> > > > >
32 matches
Mail list logo
