(Perhaps it would be better to take the part of this thread not directly related to Xinerama off-list. Some people may be getting annoyed. But, whatever: I don't particularly like on-topic police myself, due to crappy technologies. Mailing lists suck, as there's no simple light-weight way to redirect discussions elsewhere, as in Usenet. But Usenet/NNTP is also too clumsy too with its rigid or spammed hierarchies.)
On 2007-02-01, G.H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Athcool: I have tried any software possible (?) but I prefer 'powernowd' > which was successful in mad tasks such as my old amd64 3500's "old"? Doesn't sound old at all. My AthlonXP 2500+ (from mid-2003, IIRC) doesn't even have that frequency control shit yet, and I don't consider it old. It only supports whatever athcool turns on (it doesn't actively control anything). (My older Duron 1GHz would, indeed, be quite sufficient for my needs, but its mobo leaked the juices out of its capacitors only after a year, without showing any signs until later, and so I had to get new mobo/cpu/memory, as finding out the broken one of them would've been too laboursome.) > And I think the main goal on using GNU/Linux is about pushing out the > capabilities of cheap hardware... I know... Doesn't seem like people are doing that. No, they're getting bigger penis enlargements instead of... > Multihead: > --------------------------- > I don't agree with some arguments proposed in early posts. There are very > many ways of serious criticism on the techno-empiricism exposed here: In > my modest opinion (which is not mine indeed) the brain is just tied to the > senses but no directly "co-responsible" in the cognitive functions, so is > not possible to measure the cognitive capabilities of one individual or > his psychical-motor development in the perspective of his angle of vision > [...] That is indeed a reductionist explanation, and the possibilities > into the multihead settings are not just focused on vision but rater in > the interaction and expressiveness. > ---------------------------- ... doing more with less. That's what my multihead criticism is all about: doing more with less. Multihead is wasteful: you don't technically need it to do what you want to do, unless penis enlargement is precisely what you want. As for the psychological side, i.e. your need for penis enlargements, I don't care. I just care what you purportedly need that wasteful extra screen (or other gizmo) for, and whether you technically really need it for that. I can be the judge of technical need if you provide the necessary information, and most of the time, there is not one, because people don't dare to say that it's penis enlargement precisely, what they want. You know, you probably could survive without that computer too. You don't need it to survive. But you need it for many other things, that I can agree with. And a screen too. But you don't need multiple screens, or a really big screen to do these things, just a modest-sized screen. You also shouldn't need a very powerful computer, and certainly not an x86 frying pan, but unfortunately these things are a bit out of any single person's control... (There are processors that demand far less energy for the same computing power as the x86 mount de manure, although their peak power may not be as high. But by using multiple low-power processors (or multicore) in parallel, you could get a lot of computing... That's where I think things will eventually head, if people get into their senses: many low-power computing units instead of a single centralised frying pan.) As you can see, it's all about doing more with less, and multihead is antithetic to that for most uses. As for a penis enlargement, well, rather a screen than a car, if people would just admit that's what they want it for. But better without either. (An urban automobile is like a penis with AIDS and pus, and an SUV the over-bloated same. Now, a train/metro/etc., that's a decent-sized healthy penis... and far more energy-efficient than that gas-guzzling murderous tin can.) > but dividing the screen by two in 17" monitors perhaps is not good > enough. It is. That's all I've ever had, and works great. For programming, for latex+pdf/dvi, for everything I've ever had to do. At least with Ion. And if you're using something worse, well, you could do more with less by switching to Ion. Or creating something even better. Of course you might be doing something that I don't do, that really does demand more screen space even in my opinion, but those handful of people most certainly people do not include techno-toy fetists bragging about their zillion monitor configurations, and crying after broken Xinerama support in Ion. > Finally, I am just thinking about the technical possibility of making > work Ion with some Xinerama alternative, perhaps MergedFB on ati > devices. Maybe repeating somebody in the list, would be possible to > point in that direction considering there are not much documentation > about? As far as I'm concerned, Xinerama is a protocol, for communicating geometries of physical screens on the root window, not a particular X server module. NVidias drivers also don't use the standard modules, but they use the same protocol: hence they provide Xinerama. The case is likely to be the same with ATIs. As far as applications are concerned, it's Xinerama. X has supported non-Xinerama multihead for ages, however.. -- Tuomo
