On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:57:02 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 23/03/2016 12:53, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 07:46:09AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote
> >
> >> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 04:51:52 PM Grant Edwards wrote:
> >>> You're probably right, the magick sysrq feature pretty much obviates
> >>> the need to boot to console to protect against buggy X11 servers. But,
> >>> it's fairly recent and Linux-specific. So, the boot-to-console trait
> >>> (which evolved pre-sysrq -- and even pre-Linux, and has very little
> >>> "cost") hasn't died out yet...
> >>
> >> Yes, but it Xorg isn't that buggy to warrant the inconvience of
> >> a console boot on a desktop/laptop. Even with proprietary nvidia
> >> drivers.
> >>
> > How much inconvenience is it, really? I have a short script ~/bin/x
> >
> > #! /bin/bash
> > startx -- -nosilk -config ${1}xorg.conf &
> >
> > At the commandline I simply type "x" and hit the {ENTER} key. Note
> >
> > the "-config ${1}xorg.conf". The default (i.e. no parameters passed to
> > script) is to go with the regular xorg.conf. But if I want to go with a
> > lower resolution (e.g. 640x480) from "640xorg.conf", I would start with
> >
> > x 640
> >
> > This allows me to easily start up not only with different resolutions,
> >
> > but different colour depths, etc.
>
> Most users in this day and age would probably reply "why do I need to
> start with different resolutions and colour depth?"
>
> It's been many years since I myself fiddled with any of that, all my
> displays are now LCD where only one resolution makes any sense - native
Even before I did that, I always opted for the highest resolution the screen
could give me with a decent refresh-rate. (anything lower than 75hz on a tube
gives me a headache)
I never understood why anyone would want a lower resolution than the max
possible.
--
Joost
