|Sent on:||Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:42 AM|
On Tuesday 27 January[masked]:53:46 pm badiane wrote: > I just needed to get > ��this off my chest. Seriously guys (and girls), can we kill this thread? This kind of zealotry is worthless. Code talks. Words don't. If you have a problem with this functionality, submit a patch and convince the X.org people. If you're still unhappy, switch to something else. If you feel like ranting, go become a journalist or create a blog, and keep it AWAY from our inboxes. > http://blogs.tech... Just so this e-mail has information that is on topic for the list... I recently switched to a newer X.org, and can comment with some of the problems the journalist experienced (along with other tidbits he neglected to mention). If you already have an xorg.conf file (I do, I have been using the same one for essentially 4 yrs), X will continue to use it. Experienced users continue to do whatever they were doing before. There are some caveats here, however, with regards to input devices. Some good reading: * Input configuration in a nutshell: http://who-t.blog... * evdev, xorg.conf, hal and other FUD: http://who-t.blog... Previously, if X did not have a configuration file, it would not start. Now, if there is no file, X (attempts) to autodetect everything, so you at least get some kind of graphical environment to work in (for most users, this is enough). I fail to see why this is bad, and what this has to do with imitating Windows, or whatever FUD has been spread through this thread. This is behavior of X.org's X--while being developed on Linux, these features will probably show up on *BSD as well. All these "switch to *BSD" or MacOS X arguments are moot, and also off-topic (isn't this a Linux list?). -- Samat K Jain <http://samat.org/...; | GPG: 0x1A1993D3 It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery (210)
This email message originally included an attachment.