X configuration paradigm, and a proposal

[Jim Gettys]

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

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
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.

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).

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.

And yes, we have lots of work to do to make this vision real.
			- Jim Gettys

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 14:43 -0800, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> --- Jim Gettys <Jim.Gettys at hp.com> wrote:
> >In fact, much/most of the configuration should be outside of >the X
> >server's direct control.
> 
> >For example, input devices should be handed to the X server by >the
> >operating system: this is a property of the operating system's >desktop
> >policy (input devices might be used for other things than the >window
> >system).  This and hotplug implies that they should not be >configured
> >into the window system statically at all.
> 
> >One can argue similar things about even graphics hardware and >monitor
> >resolution, though it isn't quite a clear cut situation.
> 
> >So yes, we're planning on major changes in this area indeed...
> 
> >If you have time, talent and energy to put toward the >engineering tasks
> >ahead of us in this area, it is a very good area to work in.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________
> Gratis e-postadress ---> http://www.mailamig.nu
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at freedesktop.org
> http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg