On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 18:43 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Dude. This is nonsense. To you maybe. > WMs such as metacity are xinerama-aware and have been about > forever. Guess I am showing my age because I have to admit that the last time I tired Xinerama was waaaay before metacity was around. > Windows won't be maximized across the monitor boundaries So I hit maximize on a window on a Xinerama screen and it will only maximize to the single screen underlying that portion of the Xinerama screen? Neat. But what if I really did want a window maximized across monitor boundaries? > and > the monitor boundaries are "magnetic" when you move windows across > them. Not really sure what means. Maybe a maximized app on one screen can be moved to another and it will be maximized there, even if it needs resizing to do so? > So Xinerama in WMs gives you about everything you explained > above, Except one thing. The most important for me in fact. I must have not emphasized that enough. But it's the ability to switch viewports on screens independently. A common scenario for me is grouping work tasks on to different viewports on the screen on the right and switch between view ports to switch between tasks, all the while leaving the screen on the left on the same viewport reading e-mail. > in addition to actually allow you to drag windows across the > border if you want to. Yeah, sometimes that would be nice, but generally, I don't miss it. > And that's why I am saying that multiple screens per display is just a > pointless excercise, For how you work, perhaps it is. Clearly for how I work it's not. > since it gives you exactly NOTHING that multiple > montors per screen wouldn't give you -- no, it takes features away. Does it really give me independently switchable viewports? > That is a broken use case too, because in this case you should be > using two seperate displays, instead of one display with two screens. Actually, I'd probably prefer that, then I don't have to have task bars on the second screen like I do with dual-head Gnome. However, AFAIK, one is not able to run independent X servers on the two displays of a dual-headed video card. Maybe I'm wrong. > Really, multiple screens per display is just pointless. Its a useless > feature... Every man has an opinion. b. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20091030/3e217ac4/attachment.pgp>
