On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 16:05 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 26.10.09 15:03, Leszek Koltunski (les...@koltunski.pl) wrote: *snip* > > ) whereas 'separate X screen' creates 2 separate desktops (2 copies > > of gnome-panels appear, one on each monitor, dragging is impossible, > > each monitor has its own icons, trays etc ) . > > Yepp, and I'd argue the non-xinerama setup is useless. *snip*
I use the 'separate X' as well, even though my monitors are side-by-side. Its handy to 'lock' the mouse pointer into a particular monitor, which can be useful for mouse-heavy interaction while using the other screen to monitor (pun not intended) some processes or function. My normal use-case is full-screen gaming on one screen, if anyone's ever tried to play a side-scroller or FPS game with one side of the screen being 'transparent' and allowing the mouse to cross over, you'll know what I mean. Of course, for my purposes separate X11 properties for Pulse aren't necessary. Just thought I'd throw in a use-case where separate X DOES make sense. Similarly to the OP, it often seems to me like this is quite neglected, with most assuming that we'd all want our multiple monitors to act like one big monitor. Oh, and I just figured, you can't xinerama too many monitors together (4-6 screens, anyone?), at least not with nvidia... and xinerama hasn't been worked on in quite a while, to the best of my knowledge. _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list pulseaudio-discuss@mail.0pointer.de https://tango.0pointer.de/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
