X configuration paradigm, and a proposal

[Anton Markov]

Peter Karlsson wrote:
> I'm only a lowly user but I feel I have to speak up. What is
> the problem with todays way of configurating X? The xorg.conf
> file is perfectly understandable. For me, *nix has always been
> freedom of choice, i.e. I can configure everything to suit me;
> I don't have to accept any "standard" configuration that
> someone thinks is suitable. Is this going away? I apologise 
> if anyone is offended about this but I always get the "jitters"
> whenever people (which often tends to be microsoft windows people - at least that's the impression I get) talks of getting
> rid of the, human readable, XF86Config/xorg.conf file.
> At least consider doing it a compile-time option to do it
> "the old way" or "the 'new' way"...
> 
> ... or maybe I misunderstood the whole thing?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Peter K

I agree that we don't need anything close to the windows "registry"; 
it's a death trap. At the same time there should be some hiearchial 
organization of the information. I would prefer the xorg.d directory 
idea proposed elsewhere. Alternatively, an xorg.conf file, if present, 
could override any/all xorg.d settings.


-- 
Anton Markov <("anton" + "@" + "truxtar" + "." + "com")>

GnuPG Key fingerprint =
5546 A6E2 1FFB 9BB8 15C3  CE34 46B7 8D93 3AD1 44B4

*** LINUX - MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU! ***
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20041109/d508cfac/attachment.pgp>