Re: Kernel Module? On second thought...
TR> You really need some way to identify the XFree86 server as TR> "trusted". In Linux today, the only mechanism for doing that is TR> suid root. I'm sorry to repeat what I've already said, but it isn't. It could very well be setgid xfree86, setgid hwaccess. Old SunOS had setgid kmem for ps and friends. Juliusz ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Kernel Module? On second thought...
RJ> Judging from the large number of *flames* I got for suggesting it, These weren't flames. They were fairly kind explanations. A flame is something completely different -- you'll see if you hang around some more ;-) Juliusz ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Betr: Re: Betr: Re: xfs install on RedHat machine
Goals are met ! >-- Oorspronkelijk bericht -- >From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Betr: Re: xfs install on RedHat machine >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:24:36 -0400 (EDT) > > >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Well in the end the answer was much simpler than expected. I am >creating a RH kickstart CD and was playing with the packages I >should include. I did include xfs but didn't include X. A >mes >age from the ini.d/xfs file would have been nice indeed as >xfs doesn't start when there is no /usr/X11R6/bin/X. Well, people can't have it both ways. You complain that xfs didn't start, someone else complains that xfs starts and they don't ne >d/want/use it. We have to choose one single thing and everyone gets it. Anyway, the check for /usr/X11R6/bin/X to determine wether or not to start xfs has been removed for quite a while now, as it makes it difficult for people to start xfs, w >o don't run an X server on the same machine and just want to use xfs for network font serving. Yes, this will probably upset the people out there who don't want xfs to start up if they're not using an X server. As I said above though, peopl > can't have it both ways as we can't read people's minds. The initscript can be disabled like any other system service, so people who install xfs from now on, will have it enabled by default (and it has TCP disabled also by default), and those >who don't actually want to use it or need it, can disable it themselves as an end user configuration customization. I feel this makes life the easiest for the largest amount of users out there, and that's one of our goals. ;o) -- Mike A. H >rris ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual head on Intel 852GM/855GM chipset
On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 06:46, Alex Deucher wrote: > As I recall, all intel chips from the i830 and up can drive two > independant heads. However, there is currently no support for it in > the xfree86 driver. I don't know whether it is due to lack of specs or > lack of developer time. > > Alex Do you have any links that I could check out regarding independent heads. I'd be _very_ interested in finding out more about this. FWIW, even the Windows driver for my I845G doesn't support multiple heads, only display cloning as David mentioned. Regards Damien ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Dri-devel] DRI proprietary modules
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 19:12, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:46:44PM -0400, John Dennis wrote: > > > Does anybody know for the proprietary drivers (supplied by ATI and > > Nvidia) which pieces they replace and which pieces they expect to be > > there? The reason I'm asking is to understand the consequences of > > changing an API. I'm curious to the answer in general, but in this > > specific instance the api I'm worried about is between the agpgart > > kernel module and drm kernel module. If the agpgart kernel module > > modifies it's API will that break things for someone who installs a > > proprietary 3D driver? Do the proprietary drivers limit themselves to > > mesa driver and retain the existing kernel services assuming the IOCTL's > > are the same? Or do they replace the kernel drm drivers as well? If so > > do they manage AGP themselves, or do they use the systems agpgart > > driver? Do they replace the systems agpgart driver? > > NVIDIA driver can optionally use the kernel agpgart, but also has its > own built-in. ATI always use their own agpgart afair. > > Change the agpgart API, and they will likely break. ATI can optionally use kernel agpgart with Option "UseInternalAGPGART" "no" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dri-devel] DRI proprietary modules
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:46:44PM -0400, John Dennis wrote: > Does anybody know for the proprietary drivers (supplied by ATI and > Nvidia) which pieces they replace and which pieces they expect to be > there? The reason I'm asking is to understand the consequences of > changing an API. I'm curious to the answer in general, but in this > specific instance the api I'm worried about is between the agpgart > kernel module and drm kernel module. If the agpgart kernel module > modifies it's API will that break things for someone who installs a > proprietary 3D driver? Do the proprietary drivers limit themselves to > mesa driver and retain the existing kernel services assuming the IOCTL's > are the same? Or do they replace the kernel drm drivers as well? If so > do they manage AGP themselves, or do they use the systems agpgart > driver? Do they replace the systems agpgart driver? NVIDIA driver can optionally use the kernel agpgart, but also has its own built-in. ATI always use their own agpgart afair. Change the agpgart API, and they will likely break. Dave -- Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
DRI proprietary modules
For DRI to work correctly there are several independent pieces that all have to be "in sync". * XFree86 server which loads drm modules (via xfree86 driver module) * The drm kernel module * The agpgart kernel module Does anybody know for the proprietary drivers (supplied by ATI and Nvidia) which pieces they replace and which pieces they expect to be there? The reason I'm asking is to understand the consequences of changing an API. I'm curious to the answer in general, but in this specific instance the api I'm worried about is between the agpgart kernel module and drm kernel module. If the agpgart kernel module modifies it's API will that break things for someone who installs a proprietary 3D driver? Do the proprietary drivers limit themselves to mesa driver and retain the existing kernel services assuming the IOCTL's are the same? Or do they replace the kernel drm drivers as well? If so do they manage AGP themselves, or do they use the systems agpgart driver? Do they replace the systems agpgart driver? -- John Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual head on Intel 852GM/855GM chipset
As I recall, all intel chips from the i830 and up can drive two independant heads. However, there is currently no support for it in the xfree86 driver. I don't know whether it is due to lack of specs or lack of developer time. Alex --- David_Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I recently bought an IBM ThinkPad G40 with the Intel 852GM/855GM > graphics chipset. Now I wonder after a few hours of playing with > different XF86Config setups if it is possible to run Xinerama > dualhead > on this chipset (with internal TFT panel and external CRT screen). > > The keyboard has buttons to switch between internal, external and > internal + external modes but the latter means that the screens are > just > duplicated and this functionality seems independent of the driver. > > The following thread seems to indicate that the chipset has hw > support > for dual-head but that the driver doesn't: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03064.html > > Now, my question is: is the above thread true? > > Regards, > David > > __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Dual head on Intel 852GM/855GM chipset
Hi, I recently bought an IBM ThinkPad G40 with the Intel 852GM/855GM graphics chipset. Now I wonder after a few hours of playing with different XF86Config setups if it is possible to run Xinerama dualhead on this chipset (with internal TFT panel and external CRT screen). The keyboard has buttons to switch between internal, external and internal + external modes but the latter means that the screens are just duplicated and this functionality seems independent of the driver. The following thread seems to indicate that the chipset has hw support for dual-head but that the driver doesn't: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03064.html Now, my question is: is the above thread true? Regards, David ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: How to render multiple cursors?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Egbert van der Wal wrote: >One very simple use of two mice and two cursors would be the use of the same >computer by two people. > >I often find myself working at something together with someone else when we >keep passing the mouse over to eachother when it would be a whole lot simpler >and more effective if we both had a mouse and a pointer so we could point >things out to eachother and work simultanously. > >It would be even more useful with a multiple monitor setup with a mouse and >keyboard for each monitor, so you can work on different things at the same >time while having the possibility of easily exchange tasks/applications by >simple dragging the window to one of the other screens. > >I can think of loads of uses for multiple mices/pointers. Those are kindof rare cases IMHO, but they do sound like they would be useful to some people nonetheless. Since posting, a number of other people have written me privately either in email or in IRC with other interesting examples of where multiple mice pointers would be useful. I still believe it would be of limited value to the general population, but that it would indeed be useful for various niche users and power users, so might be worth having some kind of support for it. Seems scary though.. and would make it interesting to work out exactly how/what the swcursor/hwcursor options end up doing... ;o) -- Mike A. Harris ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Betr: Re: xfs install on RedHat machine
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Well in the end the answer was much simpler than expected. I am >creating a RH kickstart CD and was playing with the packages I >should include. I did include xfs but didn't include X. A >message from the ini.d/xfs file would have been nice indeed as >xfs doesn't start when there is no /usr/X11R6/bin/X. Well, people can't have it both ways. You complain that xfs didn't start, someone else complains that xfs starts and they don't need/want/use it. We have to choose one single thing and everyone gets it. Anyway, the check for /usr/X11R6/bin/X to determine wether or not to start xfs has been removed for quite a while now, as it makes it difficult for people to start xfs, who don't run an X server on the same machine and just want to use xfs for network font serving. Yes, this will probably upset the people out there who don't want xfs to start up if they're not using an X server. As I said above though, people can't have it both ways as we can't read people's minds. The initscript can be disabled like any other system service, so people who install xfs from now on, will have it enabled by default (and it has TCP disabled also by default), and those who don't actually want to use it or need it, can disable it themselves as an end user configuration customization. I feel this makes life the easiest for the largest amount of users out there, and that's one of our goals. ;o) -- Mike A. Harris ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: How to render multiple cursors?
One very simple use of two mice and two cursors would be the use of the same computer by two people. I often find myself working at something together with someone else when we keep passing the mouse over to eachother when it would be a whole lot simpler and more effective if we both had a mouse and a pointer so we could point things out to eachother and work simultanously. It would be even more useful with a multiple monitor setup with a mouse and keyboard for each monitor, so you can work on different things at the same time while having the possibility of easily exchange tasks/applications by simple dragging the window to one of the other screens. I can think of loads of uses for multiple mices/pointers. On Wednesday 15 October 2003 18:07, Mike A. Harris wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, david mattatall wrote: > >> Why would you want more than one pointer? and more importantly how would > >> it be used? > > > >1. It's quite conciveable that two cursors could be used to perform two > >actions at the same time, I mean most of us use multitasking OS'es so the > >cursors should reflect that. > > > >2. USE YOUR IMAGINATION! Two usb mice, one in your left hand, one in your > >right. You use one to click and drag a window out of the way and you use > > the other to choose your favorite song on XMMS. The uses of the > > technology will expand to fit the technology, that's what OpenSource > > development is all about. (actually what first is needed is someone with > > ambition AND coding skills. Like many others, I only have the latter.) > > I find it rather unlikely that someone would use a mouse in each > hand for any real world non-hypothetical "because I can" sense. > Come up with an actual *tangible* reason, and then it's something > to discuss IMHO. > > Open source development isn't "all about devising and > implementing useless features nobody will use for any useful > purpose". > > >> I wonder if you are not making life more difficult than it > >> needs to be. > > > >How? By proposing an Idea? > > I see no demand for your idea out there. > > >> Actually the more I think about the more I really want to > >> know the answer to thoes two questions. > > > >See above :) > > Feel free to implement it, and then fix all window managers and > other affected applications out there, then propose it as an > enhancement if you like. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
