Re: Re: Mouse configuration during installation needs improvement
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 07:35:20AM -0700, Stephen Powell wrote:
> Thanks for the update on mouse sharing in newer
> kernels. I didn't realize that this support had been
> added. That does take away part of my supporting
> argument for configuring X to use gpm.
It was a very nice improvement.
> I realize that PS/2 mice were not intended to be hot
> swapped, but "stuff happens". Sometimes the connector
> is loose and falls out, sometimes a mischievous
> co-worker unplugs it as a practical joke, sometimes
> the mouse fails, sometimes someone trips over the
> cord, sometimes the dog chews on it, sometimes an
> inquisitive toddler unplugs it, etc. Being able to
> recover from these things without requiring a reboot
> (or at least restarting the X server) is a nice
> feature, one that gpm provides.
For a PS/2 port, there is NOTHING software can do to recover. The
hardware on the majority of PCs requires a reset for the PS/2 port to
come back to life.
gpm is of no help here. X does mouse handling just as well as gpm does.
> Well, as Scotty of Star Trek fame says, "The more they
> overtink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the
> drain." (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock) But
> then again, you could make that argument for the new
> kernel support for mouse sharing too. Yes, adding
> another layer of software also adds another thing that
> can go wrong. The key is to make the benefits greater
> than the cost. I can only say that I have used gpm on
> several different machines under several different
> releases of Linux, and I have never had a bit of
> trouble with it. In some cases I seem to remember it
> allowing the mouse to work when X couldn't drive it
> directly (the "fups2" protocol came to the rescue).
> And it has saved my hindquarters when the mouse got
> unplugged somehow.
/dev/input/mice actually has the kernel convert all known mouse formats
to one protocol as far as I know, so all those mouse protocol issues are
gone too.
> I'm not sure how one would know that most people don't
> use the console. I, for one, use it a lot. But even
> it it's true, I don't see why a device driver for a
> device that is present on the system shouldn't be
> installed. Should you not install serial port support
> because most people don't use the serial port? It
> won't HARM people who DON'T use the console, will it?
> We're talking about basic hardware support here,
> something that many applications can use -- not an
> application. Please reconsider.
gpm is NOT a driver. It is a tool that can use the mouse interface in
the kernel and do useful things with the terminal. Other programs could
do the same if they wanted to. it is not a driver though.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: