Anselm Lingnau wrote: > David Clinton wrote: [...]
>> Here's a partial list of files that no longer seem to exist on either >> Ubuntu or Fedora (in case of xorg.conf, it hasn't existed by default >> since version 9.10): > The thing with xorg.conf is that the X developers have done wonders in order > to ensure that basic setups work without actually having to write an > xorg.conf > file, but you may still need the file if you want to do fancier things. So > the > fact that Ubuntu doesn't provide an xorg.conf file by default doesn't really > mean a lot since for most cases the X server can figure out the system by > itself, but the principle of xorg.conf is by no means obsolete. I agree. A default xorg.conf was long gone in Fedora when I had to write a custom one in order to have the following happen: 1) have a tablet work; 2) have a blacklisted Synaptics touchpad work; 3) have some AGP graphics cards run in 4x mode instead of the default 1x mode; 4) enable some extensions that were not enabled by default, like DRI2, EXA, XRANDR, or disable some that did not coexist peacefully with some other (IIRC I once had to disable COMPOSITE in order to activate some other feature); 5) have a custom ServerLayout section; 6) have a working ModeLine for a mode that was not automatically detected by Xorg; 7) enable the intel drivers' MPEG2 MC support that was disabled by default on the gpu used. And I can think of yet more uses of an xorg.con file, like having a non-standard fontpath recognised or changing the default bit-per-pixel mode or setting a default lower-than-maximum resolution of the monitor in use. It's good that people are aware that, even when by default the file is not there, there could be an Xorg config file that could prove very useful to solve many kinds of issues one can have with Xorg. It's knowledge is fundamental when one is trying to use some proprietary 3D driver, thought I recognize that this need is felt more by gamers than corporate users! :-) [...] > It makes more sense to evaluate the content of the LPIC objectives with > regard > to »enterprise« distributions such as RHEL, SLES, CentOS, or Debian, which > move a lot more slowly and whose make-up is usually closer to what the LPIC > exams talk about than techno-geek distributions like Fedora would be. It also > turns out that these distributions, rather than Ubuntu or Fedora, are the > ones > that are most popular in the »professional« circles that LPI targets. I agree on this wholeheartedly. Greetings, -- Alessandro Selli http://alessandro.route-add.net VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
