Talk:RandR

something

I wonder if something should be mentioned about the relative lack of documentation. elmindreda 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the entire article has been pasted from the xrandr man page . Danielphin 11:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, scroll down to "DESCRIPTION" in the Xrandr.3 CVS page. I'm going to cite the xrandr paper on the X page. Joshuadfranklin 16:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was sorely needed. I edited the last sentence for tone. --elmindreda (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Limitations and Criticisms

Looks like cut/paste from slashdot, etc. Tedickey (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Which slashdot article are you referring to? Limitations are relevant. The advantages of RandR were listed without mention of the contrasting shortcomings. I hold that this section actually establishes neutrality. Its brief, cites sources and imparts useful information. 88.105.123.14 (talk)

The source is (apparently with humor intended) someone's blog labeled "not a blog". It's not even close to being a reliable source. Tedickey (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Using Tuomo Valkonen as a source doesn't help, since he doesn't have anything constructive to say - only complaints. Tedickey (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where "constructive" is understood as back-patting -- something that should be seen as unconstructive, if the actual goal was to produce quality software. TheNewLayoutSucks (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sure - but "constructive" might be addressed by taking part in the discussion, pointing out exactly how to improve things. None of that applies to Tuomo's comments (or past actions) Tedickey (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From the post: "Traditional X multihead offers a multi-screen model. This approach should be extended, and artificial restrictions that it currently suffers from, should be lifted. " etc. TheNewLayoutSucks (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you're agreeing with me - the comment is only complaining about specific things. Did Tuomo participate in any of the discussions, or send useful patches? Let's limit the discussion to constructive interactions Tedickey (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! The typical FOSS-fallacy! Participate as an outsider in the backroom talks of the corporate-sponsored FOSScracy? Spend 24/7 monitoring all the gazillion mailing lists of the major projects intent on ruining everything that was once good about *nix? (Often the shit already having hit the fan, when you hear about it.) Fighting against windmills/trends, the huge flock of people who have recently migrated from Windows to Linux, wanting to turn it into a clone? And whom the corporate-sponsored FOSScracy very much likes to please.

The point being, that not being part of the elite, you have just as much or even less of a chance of affecting anything, as a minor customer of a major software corporation has. The snowball can not be stopped, you can only jump out of the way. TheNewLayoutSucks (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article shouldn't mention a constructive or unconstructive side of that debate. The article should mention noteworthy aspects of the subject. 98.230.50.73 (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between "Xorg Foundation" and "Xorg developers"

The mailing-list thread pointed to covers discussion by developers who make a distinction between "Xorg Foundation" and (themselves) developers. Perhaps "Xorg developers" is a better way to word it. Tedickey (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

multiple workspaces and window managers: a solution

Xnest & Xephyr - the same way you can accomplish a multiseat configuration! :) bkil (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of "These specific issues are resolved in XRandR 1.3"

How they were resolved? Honestly, I do not understand why on the earth this means that those issues are resolved. Could someone explain that (preferably on the article)? --ilaiho (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Version 1.4

According to the latest commits the original version 1.4 was scrapped and is being replaced with new functionality, including "GPU objects" or "provider objects" as the protocol calls them. See also this announcement on Phoronix.com (according to it the changes were originally planned for 1.5.).

Update: Here's the announcement on the mailing list. Distro0 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Zaphod and Multiseat are not the same thing

So-called "Zaphod" mode is when a single X screen has multiple protocol displays on a single graphics card. E.g., X server :0 has screens :0.0 and :0.1 on a single GPU. Traditionally, these screens are still intended to be used by a single person.

So-called "multiseat" configurations (which the RandR article describes and Zaphod_display redirects to) describes configurations where multiple user workstations are attached to a single computer.

Should the incorrect Zaphod text just be removed? --216.228.112.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Primary Screen

In the examples, the primary screen is mentioned in two places but there is no evidence of what it is. What determines primacy? A characteristic of the hardware? An algorithm? A parameter of configuration set by the user? This article isn't a manual but to be meaningful to a non-expert reader, terminology should be explained. Mysterious terminology seriously devalues any example. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots

Here is a nice screenshot of the GUI-tools that comes with Ubuntu: http://www.profenter.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ubuntu-anzeige.png Would be nice to get such for the wikipedia. User:ScotXW^t@lk 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cinnamon also has a graphical front-end that utilzes RandR: http://www.linuxmint.com/pictures/screenshots/rosa/cinnamon_display.png User:ScotXW^t@lk 15:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

KDE Plasma 5, e.g http://vizzzion.org/blog/2015/11/screen-config-victory/ User:ScotXW^t@lk 13:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)