1 |
On Dec 30, 2013 7:51 AM, "Brent Busby" <brent@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> After years of assuming I'd probably never set my system up with multiple |
4 |
monitors, I've decided to go ahead and do it. I've watched with some |
5 |
interest as various new schemes for doing it have emerged over the years |
6 |
(Xinerama, and now lately RandR), but I've always assumed that if nothing |
7 |
else, good old Zaphod mode would always be around, since it's built right |
8 |
into the way X11 numbers $DISPLAY (0:0, 0:1, 0:2...etc.). It's been around |
9 |
so long, it's older than Linux itself. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Lately, I've been reading a lot of listserv and newsgroup posts from |
12 |
developers telling various people in forums that if they want Zaphod mode, |
13 |
they're more or less strange odd creatures who ought to be ashamed of |
14 |
themselves. The driver developers don't want to support it anymore. It's |
15 |
not so much a problem in the X server as in each of the individual video |
16 |
drivers for the various cards. I've probably read seven or eight different |
17 |
threads like this now, so it's odd that the common trend in all of them is |
18 |
that each of these users is told no one else but them uses it. (Apparently |
19 |
a lot do.) |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Anyway, Zaphod is what I want. I don't care that it won't let me drag |
22 |
windows between monitors. That's precisely the advantage of it. Many |
23 |
applications are written with such an assumption of a single display that |
24 |
it's best not to disappoint them. I don't want to worry about what a |
25 |
fullscreen game will think of my multihead setup. I don't want to see |
26 |
dialog windows (or anything else really) popping up, half on one monitor |
27 |
and half on another. I don't want to have to setup the arrangement of my |
28 |
desktop so that it's arranged to not look rediculous at the point where the |
29 |
two monitors divide the screen. It's all just simpler if we have two |
30 |
screens that are completely separate, and the only magic object that's able |
31 |
to move between them is the mouse pointer. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> X11 has been able to do this since the 80's. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> But now we're in a brave new world where "nobody wants to do that" (other |
36 |
than seven or eight people on various forums, and those are just the ones |
37 |
who complained). I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. They say we have |
38 |
Wayland in our future too, which we're assured will have some kind of way |
39 |
to run apps on a remote desktop that will certainly be at least as good as |
40 |
running a VNC app on Windows (oh joy). While we're at it, why don't we get |
41 |
rid of this multiple desktops thing that most X11 window managers support |
42 |
-- nobody does that on Windows either, so surely that's probably another |
43 |
thing that nobody on Linux really uses. We should definitely find all the |
44 |
window managers that support that and strip that feature out of them for |
45 |
everyone's own good. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Ok, I suppose I should quit ranting. It's just been a trend now for the |
48 |
past five years or so that I've been seeing upstream developers making |
49 |
"improvements" to Linux that are so basic to the infrastructure that no |
50 |
distro can fight them (PolicyKit, Wayland, goodbye Zaphod, udev, etc.). I |
51 |
normally don't complain about what the developers do, since it's not me |
52 |
doing the programming, but I think we should be able to make an exception |
53 |
for things that, a) affect us all, and b) are so basic to the way modern |
54 |
Linux systems work that not even the leadership of a major distro can say |
55 |
jack about it. In cases like this, I think we should have a right to |
56 |
complain, because in this instance, saying that if you don't like it you |
57 |
can start your own fork is like saying that you're free to fork the entire |
58 |
GNU/Linux platform. Technically it's true, but it's also not reasonable or |
59 |
helpful. (Nobody is going to do that.) |
60 |
> |
61 |
> So I am a bit disappointed when they decide behavior that's been an |
62 |
assumed part of the way Unix systems act for over twenty years is something |
63 |
nobody cares about, when then users complain, each user is told |
64 |
individually that they're the only ones who use that feature...all of them. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> I'm not complaining that we have RandR now. I think it's great. One of |
67 |
X11's greatest weaknesses has always been that before now, you couldn't |
68 |
really make any big configuration changes while the X server is running. |
69 |
Now, thanks to RandR, you can do almost anything with your desktop running |
70 |
and active, and you don't even need root access. You can't configure |
71 |
Zaphod type multihead that way, but that's fine -- you couldn't do that |
72 |
before either (nothing gained, nothing lost). But RandR lets you make |
73 |
almost any other desktop geometry change as a regular user without |
74 |
restarting X, and I think that's great. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> RandR (and its predecessor, Xinerama) both assume though that if you're |
77 |
doing multihead, you want one big screen that spans multiple monitors. Nice |
78 |
if that's what you want, but as detailed above, there are good reasons why |
79 |
you might prefer otherwise. For example, on my system, I have a landscape |
80 |
mode main monitor, and a secondary monitor rotated sideways (portrait mode) |
81 |
to the left of it. That means that if I were to adopt some kind of |
82 |
RandR/Xinerama type spanned desktop, I'd have a choice: I could have a |
83 |
desktop that's shaped like some kind of "L", or a desktop that's shaped |
84 |
like a sideways "T". I don't think I really like either of those very |
85 |
much. It's very weird, and many of my apps will probably think so too, |
86 |
especially when I try to fullscreen their windows. Instead of desktops |
87 |
shaped like alphabet soup, why not have separate logical screens? I don't |
88 |
mind that I can't move windows between them. I don't want the desktops to |
89 |
know about eachother anyway. It's simpler that way. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> There are Xinerama "hints" that apps which support Xinerama are supposed |
92 |
to use to help with this, which I think RandR is supposed to respect. The |
93 |
problem with this is the same as the problem with Wayland's expectation |
94 |
that clients will take care of their own network transparency needs: As |
95 |
soon as you leave it to the individual programs, you will have varying |
96 |
levels of support in each one. Some will be paragons of good behavior, |
97 |
others will be useless. You can only make a feature truly available to all |
98 |
when it's provided as an OS feature. There will still be programs that |
99 |
misbehave, but they'll have to try much harder at it. |
100 |
> |
101 |
> I think I'm probably most irked by the claims being made by some |
102 |
developers that X doesn't feature network transparency anyway, thus they're |
103 |
not really taking away anything that we really had. This, in spite of the |
104 |
daily experiences of anyone who's ever done 'ssh -Y' and seen that, |
105 |
shockingly, it actually works pretty well. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> -- |
108 |
> + Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys |
109 |
> + Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will |
110 |
> + University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of |
111 |
> + James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, |
112 |
> + Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky |
113 |
> |
114 |
|
115 |
You make it sound much worse than it actually is. |
116 |
|
117 |
These days pretty much everything works well with randr. Sure, there are |
118 |
corner cases, but it's been a while since I hit one :) I see no reason not |
119 |
to use it. |
120 |
|
121 |
The -kit fiasco, well... That's a different story. |