Re: XF4.2 packages think Alt is Meta

[Thatcher Ulrich <tu@tulrich.com>]

On Jun 21, 2002 at 12:33 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > The 4.1 configuration makes the 102 key layout incompatible with the
> > 104 key one.  The 4.2 configuration makes the 104 key layout a strict
> > superset of the 102-key one.
> > 
> > This was discussed in depth on Xpert, and the 4.2 layout reflects the
> > rough consensus reached.  I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Branden
> > as saying that he doesn't care either way.
> 
> Well, let me elaborate a little:
> 
> 1) I personally don't care, since I remap the funny keys on the bottom
> row to suit my own strange tastes anyway;
> 2) I don't want to subject my users to shock and horror.
> 3) I don't want to deviate gratuitously from upstream practice.
> 
> All this means is that 1) doesn't do anything to sway me between 2) and
> 3).
> 
> I'd appreciate input from the people on this list as to the impact of
> XFree86 4.2 on 2) and 3).  Are those goals truly in conflict?  Is this
> only a problem for people with buggy window managers?  How many Debian
> users use window managers that are buggy in this way?

I was mildly shocked by the Meta/Alt switch.  I've grown used to mild
shocks of this nature since I started using Linux regularly a few
years ago, so I wasn't outraged or anything.  I've also grown used to
the little glitches "fixing" themselves (or at least becoming more
consistent & rational) with each upgrade.

In my case I use GNOME + sawfish.  I used the Windows key for a while
in emacs, and after a couple weeks got annoyed enough to do the Google
search for the solution.  IMO the right docs in a prominent place are
important; a config option to simulate old behavior would be gravy.

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich
http://tulrich.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org