Re: Changing Monitor that gdm uses
On 11/27/15, Alan Chandler <alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk> wrote:
> On 27/11/15 10:46, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>> On 11/25/15, Alan Chandler <alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> But gdm3 has decided it is going to come up on the secondary monitor.
>>> Once the desktop starts the order of the displays is probably* also
>>> wrong, but of course can be fixed in the display settings
>>>
>>> * I say that because the main monitor is numbered 2 and the old monitor
>>> is numbered 1.
>>>
>>> Where is the detection of which monitor is which take place, and how do
>>> I tell it to change the order?
>>
>> Section "Monitor"
>>
>> This is out of my league so I have to ask.... is it normal to have two
>> entries for that declaration?
>>
>> Just thinking out loud..... :)
>>
>> Cindy :)
>>
> I think so, I have two monitors, and each section describes one of them.
Ok, I honestly wondered after I pondered that out loud. I never went
back and looked but also wondered if I hadn't missed that the numbers
were a tiny bit off for both.... and now I see they are.. *smacking
head*
And after the fact, I was closing out some related tabs and see
another distribution talking about similar. This is intriguing because
I'd like to think I'll soon "mess around" with multiple monitors just
to be able to do it AND thus potentially/eventually help others ease
into it, too.
Anyway, I attempted a couple searches out there. Not finding too much
that I can make sense of without being able to test drive it to see
what's going on. I *DID* find this:
https://wiki.debian.org/Xorg#What_if_I_do_not_have_an_xorg_config_file.3F
Debian Wiki, YAY. My apologies in advance if it's some part of what
you've already been trying. YES, I know it says "missing" but I still
see potential in it. Cut and pasted, it pretty much says:
+++
If xorg.conf is missing for some reason, Xorg will probe your hardware
on every startup. Though this works fine in most cases, some settings
remain inaccessible. To create a starting point for customization, do
the following.
Switch to a console as root (not a terminal emulator in X), then run:
# /etc/init.d/gdm stop && /etc/init.d/gdm3 stop && /etc/init.d/kdm
stop && /etc/init.d/xdm stop
$ cd /etc/X11/
# Xorg -configure
Alternatively, reboot the machine in single user mode, then run:
$ cd /etc/X11/
# Xorg -configure
+++
That was found by throwing gdm3 into my search query. Actually already
had that page opened from the search just before that hadn't
referenced gdm3. Very last part says that will walk us through the
process.
Some of why I'm posting it is to (also) wonder out loud if you had
stopped and restarted gdm/gdm3/kdm/xdm related to making your changes
manually. If that step wasn't taken, I'm wondering if *that* by itself
might help gdm3 "digest" the new changes.... without having to pursue
the "Xorg -configure" step, too.
After pondering THAT part, I then wondered if stopping and starting
those is even necessary when xorg.conf is altered manually?
Again I'm COMPLETELY out of my league here. If stopping and starting
all of those is something that is a known given for pros and is
something that is ALWAYS done ALWAYS, ala something like Apache, I'm
sorry for making noise here.. :)
Yes, I know the above is talking about that being something we could
do if xorg.conf is *missing*. Am just throwing it out there anyway
with the thought that if the "Xorg -configure" step was taken, that
might see something that it feels should be qualified some other
certain way..... or something. :)
WARNING is I have no idea what running "Xorg -configure" will do IF
xorg.conf already exists. Backing up an existing, *working* copy would
be Job #1 in that case........
Cindy :)
PS I proofread this a couple times. If there are any really strange
typos, my apologies. I'm working from the touchpad for a few days.
It's a royal pain that is unbelievably sensitive. Can't barely even
breathe near it for fear of it launching the cursor all around the
screen. :D
--
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* gobble-gobble-gobble *
Reply to: