Hi, * Cameron Hutchison <camh+dl@xdna.net> [041110 17:11]: > Once upon a time Nick Hastings said... > > > > I think you missed my point: I don't use xinerama nor do I want to. > > I'm using a dual head setup with a *single* matrox card. > > > > What I want is to somehow have my window manager or desktop > > environment to behave as described in chapter 9 of the xinermama howto. > > I dont think you're being very clear. > > You seem to be saying you want the features of xinerama, but not use > xinerama. > > If you want to move windows between heads, then you want xinerama. I already do this: as I said I have a have an X display of 2560x1024 running over two monitors. I am _not_ using xinerama, I am using mtx driver from matrox. > If you want the features listed in the xinerama faq, I want the points listed in Chapter 9 of the Xinerama HOWTO. > then you want xinerama. The features I mention (as listed in chapter 9) are suggestions to window manger coders on what they should include to play nicely with xinerama systems. They are not features *of* xinerama. EG. don't pop up windows in the middle of a 2560x1024 display because there is a dirty gap of about 5 cm where the caused by the plastic around the outside of the LCDs. > Why do you say you do not want xinerama? Because as I understand it xinerama, controls the X system of the two heads: I'm happy letting the mtx driver do that. I only want control over the window manager. For example imagine the situation where you used a single monitor, but you wanted your WM to never place anything at x = x_max/2. > I see you emphasised the word *single* above. It make no difference > whether you have a single dual-headed card or two separate video cards. > You would be able to use xinerama with both setups. Perhaps that is > causing you confusion. It may be. > If you already have a working XF86Config-4 setup with two heads as > separate screens (:0.0 and :0.1), you should simply be able to add > Option "Xinerama" "true" > to you ServerLayout section. I have a single screen section. I guess this is the point. > It is then a matter of whether or not your applications recognise > xinerama (if they need to). I am not familiar with the window manager > you mentioned in your previous mail, so I dont know how well that > supports xinerama. According to the documentation OpenBox should be xinerama friendly. > Unfortunately, some applications are not xinerama aware and they do > something like get the size of the root window, calculate the middle and > explicitly place a window at that position. This ends up being on both > monitors. I dont know if a xinerama-aware window manager can do anything > about this. ssh-add(1) had this problem. I can live with ssh-askpass popping up in the middle, but for window resizing and placement (when controlled by the WM) it would be really nice if the WM new about the two physical displays. > I dont know if it has been fixed, but it was enough for me not to use > xinerama - particularly since I have no real need to move windows > between screens. > > I think you just need to experiment a little and make sure the apps you > want to run will work well with xinerama. I'll have another play, but I don't think it will work. > For most, it wont matter. For others, they'll be xinerama-aware and > behave according to the guidelines in the FAQ you referenced. Others > will not. > > I run a dual-headed matrox card (G400), but I dont use xinerama. For the record mine is a P750, again with no xinerama. When I put `Option "xinerama"' in my ServerLayout section I see no difference: probably because as far as X is concerned I'm running a *single* (yes I used that word again ;-) ) 2560x1024 screen (one screen section only). I guess I'll try running with two screen sections and using xinerama. I guess it will work, but it just feels like an ugly way to control window management. Thanks for your help, Nick. -- Debian 3.1 Linux twofish 2.6.9-looxt93c2 i686 GNU/Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature