Re: PS/2 mouse vs USB mouse
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 21:23 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 08:52 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 20:18 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 06/06/2011 07:33 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 18:18 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>>> On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >>>> Since you didn't tell us what kind of PS/2 mouse, how in Eris' name are
> >>>> we supposed to help you?
> >>>
> >>> Trekker Wheel Mouse 2.0A
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is that a MS two-button mouse?
> >
> > The Wheel can be used as button too. Microsoft? I dunno, at least
> > there's no Microsoft logo or name written on the mouse.
> >
> > Knowingly I never owned anything from Microsoft, but the mouse is
> > second-hand, perhaps it's a Microsoft mouse.
> >
>
> Don't knock it. They make *great* optical mice.
>
> > It worked for 64 Studio/Debian Etch and Lenny. It's not broken, it still
> > works with an old Suse install.
> >
>
> Does /dev/psaux exist? Do you boot into [xkg]dm or the console? Is gpm
> installed?
Before I go to sleep.
GDM
I'm using a xorg.conf and tested it with and without mouse setings and
the xorg-mouse'n'keyboard-packages installed, I also edited, i guess it
was HAL?! ... I need to report later, I'm half asleep.
root@debian:/home/spinymouse# ls /dev/p*
/dev/parport0 /dev/port /dev/ppp /dev/psaux /dev/ptmx
/dev/pts:
0 ptmx
-- Ralf
>
> > -- Ralf
> >
> > PS: Until now completely no issues for the USB mouse. FWIW the mouse
> > wheel for the PS/2 mouse already was broken for the clean Debian stable
> > install. It isn't related to self-build kernels etc..
> >
>
> There are enough people still using PS/2 mice that the Debian-install
> people wouldn't take out the PS/2 driver.
>
> Since you eviscerated ALSA, I wouldn't be surprised if you screwed up
> something regarding the mouse, too.
>
> --
> "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
> the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally
> corrupt."
> Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749
>
>
Reply to: