--- Jim Gettys <Jim.Gettys@hp.com> wrote:

Sorry 'bout the long-winded reply... And I really do *not*
mean to step on any toes.

>Here are (some of) the issues:
>	1) input devices are (now) hot pluggable.  It is >unacceptable to have
>to restart the X server just to add or subtract them.

Agreed, but (detection of) hotpluggable devices like
mouse/keyboard should be handled by the os. Configuration
should be tweakable from both console and under X, imo...

>	2) with PCI express, even screens are hot-pluggable.

What do you mean by screens? The monitor? Or the gfx card?
Sorry, I am not that familiar with pcie...

>	3) X isn't the only thing that needs access to input >devices or
>the screen; so having X fight over devices/screens with other >uses isn't
>good.

Agreed, but this hasn't anything to do with the config file,
does it?

>The point is that X is only one component of a fully >configurable
>desktop; it should be a good citizen and do what it is told, >rather than

Agreed. The user (root) should have complete control of what
it does and doesn't do. Which, I believe, is perfectly
executed through a human readable config file... Imo, a
completely opposite view on microsoft windows take on a gui,
where someone, somewhere has decided that "this is how it
should work and nobody's gonna change it".

>the current, obsolete view of X owning everything, and having >to be
>restarted to chance a configuration, and fighting with other
>applications that might need the same resources.

Well, from my layman POV, this means that X is either having:
1. A binary field in memory saved (on disk) on logout/shutdown.
Cannot be changed easily without special tool.
2. A (human readable - preferably) text file which is polled
every few seconds.
3. A (human readable - preferably) text file that is read
whenever the X server gets a SIGHUP (like most servers do),
hopefully without upsetting any clients...

IMO, alt. 3. is the only viable option for complete control
(yep, I'm a control freak ;-)

>And users certainly should not normally have to see anything >like an
>configuration file in normal use (though I expect to need some
>configuration files for less common cases).

I'm a less common case :-) A geek certainly can't live without
a config file, no? Please don't think that every potential
user has no idea what a config file is and which can't handle
one. Yes, I agree that "average joe" should not need to see
a config file or need to mess with it; this is something
that should be left to the os supplier, or root.

>And yes, this is a very different point of view than has been
>traditionally held.  It is desktop centric, rather than X >centric, and
>more easily configurable, rather than less.

Ok, I hope I'm not upsetting you or anyone else but could you
please elaborate what "more easily configurable" means? Again,
I bring up ms windows as an example of what should be avoided
at all costs, imho. 

Well, I can see your point if "more easily configurable"
means less options to tweak; if you only have 2 options
it is really quite simple to configure, no? But I'm sure
you don't mean that ;-)

>And yes, we have lots of work to do to make this vision real.

I really do appreciate all your hard work and hope to contribute
something useful one day. As of now I don't have a really
good understanding of how X works, or how pc hardware works
(agp/pci, registers and so on), I don't know where to look.
(Ah, remembers the "good old" c64 & amiga).

Best regards

Peter K

_____________________________________________________________
Gratis e-postadress ---> http://www.mailamig.nu

