Comments on: Squib of the day: don’t manage all screens http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2009/02/08/squib-of-the-day-dont-manage-all-screens/ "Many window managers are like Marshmallow Froot Loops; Metacity is like Cheerios." Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:08:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Squibs roundup, number 1 - …for the adult in you http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2009/02/08/squib-of-the-day-dont-manage-all-screens/comment-page-1/#comment-863 Squibs roundup, number 1 - …for the adult in you Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:41:14 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/?p=390#comment-863 [...] don’t manage all screens — pending; patch available; needs converting to GConf.  Any volunteers? [...] [...] don’t manage all screens — pending; patch available; needs converting to GConf.  Any volunteers? [...]

]]> By: Thomas Thurman http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2009/02/08/squib-of-the-day-dont-manage-all-screens/comment-page-1/#comment-821 Thomas Thurman Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:31:18 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/?p=390#comment-821 @name: I think you have a very good idea there. It'd be difficult with the current design, but it's something we should work towards. @Screwtape: Yes, :0.1 sort of thing. Okay, both of these look like we need a new GConf key... @name:

I think you have a very good idea there. It’d be difficult with the current design, but it’s something we should work towards.

@Screwtape:

Yes, :0.1 sort of thing. Okay, both of these look like we need a new GConf key…

]]> By: Screwtape http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2009/02/08/squib-of-the-day-dont-manage-all-screens/comment-page-1/#comment-793 Screwtape Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:43:07 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/?p=390#comment-793 I assume this is specifically for old-style ":0.1" screens, not Xinerama screens? From the bug, it sounds like the primary use-case is "I have a computer driving a specialised display device (projector, billboard, etc.) and an ordinary monitor; I run application software that wants complete control of the specialised display device's output but the application's GUI should be on a normal, managed display". I suspect such installations are more likely to want a fixed, static configuration than to switch things around all the time. Still, that's not a good reason to *preclude* command-line configuration if such a thing is easy and unintrusive. I assume this is specifically for old-style “:0.1″ screens, not Xinerama screens?

From the bug, it sounds like the primary use-case is “I have a computer driving a specialised display device (projector, billboard, etc.) and an ordinary monitor; I run application software that wants complete control of the specialised display device’s output but the application’s GUI should be on a normal, managed display”.

I suspect such installations are more likely to want a fixed, static configuration than to switch things around all the time.

Still, that’s not a good reason to *preclude* command-line configuration if such a thing is easy and unintrusive.

]]> By: name http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2009/02/08/squib-of-the-day-dont-manage-all-screens/comment-page-1/#comment-792 name Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:13:07 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/?p=390#comment-792 Wasn't there some discussion of switching configuration formats at runtime? (Rather than at compile-time) Why not allow configuration options (any of them) to be overridden on the command-line? Wasn’t there some discussion of switching configuration formats at runtime? (Rather than at compile-time) Why not allow configuration options (any of them) to be overridden on the command-line?

]]>