Hi, * Cameron Hutchison <camh+dl@xdna.net> [041110 19:15]: > Once upon a time Nick Hastings said... > > 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. > > Now I understand your setup. It was not clear you were using the mtx > driver and that it had the capability within it to join the heads. I have two identical digital LCD displays. I think that having identical displays is the only way the mtx driver can handle dual head without using xinerama (but I'm happy to be corrected). > I dont know much about how xinerama works, and just how an application > becomes xinerama-aware, but unless mtx emulates xinerama from an API > perspective, I dont see that current xinerama-aware applications would > know that you had two screens and behave accordingly. Sure. <snip> > > > 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. > > If you have no particular attachment to having the mtx driver joining > the screens into a single screen, I would think that xinerama would be a > better option, only because more software will be aware of xinerama that > the mtx driver's method of joining screens. You are probably right. > > > 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. > > I would try adding a second device section to drive the two heads > independently, add a second monitor section referencing the new device > and then reference them both from the serverlayout section. <snip XF86config-4 sample> Thanks, I actually tried pretty much this setup, based on the example config that came with the driver. Unfortunately, at best I could only get it to give me two identical screens. The funny thing was that the mouse pointer seemed to know about the two displays... really hard to explain: it would kind of wrap around the screens once before hitting the edge. > > 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. > > I dont think there's any other way than running xinerama for > xinerama-aware apps to work. Whether the heads are joined in the x > server or the display driver makes little difference to me from a > technically asthetic perspective, but from a practical perspective a > working setup is better than a non-working one :-) (for various > definitions of working). It seems that the only working option I have right now is without xinerama. I may give it another try later. Cheers, Nick. -- Debian 3.1 Linux twofish 2.6.9-looxt93c2 i686 GNU/Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature