On 4/8/2009 9:55 AM, psmith wrote: > David wrote: >> Then I guess that you will have to compile your own Xorg with the switch >> turned on? :-) >> Seriously. From what I read 'they' are trying to make Xorg better able to >> handle common things without a conf file. But Xorg still does use a conf >> file if it is exists. In other words? The dontzap that you set stays. As >> well as the nonfree drivers that some use and need the conf file. >> Relax man. You'll live longer. 8-) > you know it may seem from my messages that i'm raging about this but > it's not the case, and if you can read emotions from typed text you are > a special individual ;) :-) Why thank you. I like to think that I am special. > i am a very chilled i'm my life and in fact i have already mentioned > that i will compile x with the years old standards set, heck i may even > put up a repo for others who wont like this change to use (and trust me > when i say that as more and more distro's implement this new x there > will be lots of those people) but i still say that fedora should take > the lead and revert this stupid change as most who have posted on this > in the fedora lists are against it, they have diverted from upstream on > many different things and i don't see why this should be different, and > then let those who want this change regress to using an xorg.conf Since this is the development list can I take it that you run a Rawhide setup or do you run a 'release' setup? I ask because trying to keep up with Xorg in Rawhide would be a real chore. That is why I suggested the 'dont zap' section in Xorg. As far as 'this' Xorg version? I can't say for *all* distributions but *all* of the ones that I am familiar, the major ones, have switched to this version. I now wonder just what the thread will look like when someone notices that they turned of the 'blinking' in the terminal cursor? :-p -- David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
