Hello SuSE people. Asked this question a little over a month ago and got no response. I just need to know the answer to this. Running 9.2 with all updates. Please confirm or reject my assumptions. 9.2 uses xorg. correct? Anything written about X should be written to xorg.conf correct? Here is my point. When I installed 9.2 all of the parameters of my monitor were written to xorg.conf. I changed out the monitor to a new tft/lcd monitor. Sax wrote the parameters of the new monitor to XF86Config. (The old monitor is still present in xorg.conf) Now, everything seems to be working correctly but has left me somewhat confused and bewildered. Is my system using xorg, like it should be in 9.2 or has it changed up and is now using XF86Config. Or, is it using some combination of the two. Why did Yast do this? I'll probably buy 10.0 when it is released so it is probably a moot point. Still would like to understand this though. Bob S.
B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Asked this question a little over a month ago and got no response. I just need to know the answer to this.
Running 9.2 with all updates. Please confirm or reject my assumptions.
9.2 uses xorg. correct? Anything written about X should be written to xorg.conf correct?
Here is my point. When I installed 9.2 all of the parameters of my monitor were written to xorg.conf. I changed out the monitor to a new tft/lcd monitor. Sax wrote the parameters of the new monitor to XF86Config. (The old monitor is still present in xorg.conf)
Now, everything seems to be working correctly but has left me somewhat confused and bewildered. Is my system using xorg, like it should be in 9.2 or has it changed up and is now using XF86Config. Or, is it using some combination of the two. Why did Yast do this?
I'll probably buy 10.0 when it is released so it is probably a moot point. Still would like to understand this though.
Bob S.
I've seen previously, not in 9.3, though I may have changed it, xorg.conf as a symlink to XF86Config. You can do "ls -l /etc/X11" to see what's there. /var/log/Xorg.0.log will give you a blow by blow account of what X uses. # grep xorg.conf /var/log/Xorg.0.log (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf" Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
On Thursday 01 September 2005 08:34 am, Sid Boyce wrote:
B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Asked this question a little over a month ago and got no response. I just need to know the answer to this.
Running 9.2 with all updates. Please confirm or reject my assumptions.
9.2 uses xorg. correct? Anything written about X should be written to xorg.conf correct?
Here is my point. When I installed 9.2 all of the parameters of my monitor were written to xorg.conf. I changed out the monitor to a new tft/lcd monitor. Sax wrote the parameters of the new monitor to XF86Config. (The old monitor is still present in xorg.conf)
Now, everything seems to be working correctly but has left me somewhat confused and bewildered. Is my system using xorg, like it should be in 9.2 or has it changed up and is now using XF86Config. Or, is it using some combination of the two. Why did Yast do this?
I'll probably buy 10.0 when it is released so it is probably a moot point. Still would like to understand this though.
Bob S.
I've seen previously, not in 9.3, though I may have changed it, xorg.conf as a symlink to XF86Config. You can do "ls -l /etc/X11" to see what's there.
OK, did that and it shows the xorg.conf file (but not the XFree86.config file) There is no soft link there unless it is a system generated hard link which I cannot see.
/var/log/Xorg.0.log will give you a blow by blow account of what X uses. # grep xorg.conf /var/log/Xorg.0.log
OK did that and I got the same response as below.
(==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf"
Sooo, that means it is using the xorg file but why doesn't the new monitor show in the file and the old one is still present in that file. I do see some references to the new monitor under the nvidia settings though in Xorg.0 log. Oh well !!!! ???? Bob S.
B. Stia wrote:
On Thursday 01 September 2005 08:34 am, Sid Boyce wrote:
B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Asked this question a little over a month ago and got no response. I just need to know the answer to this.
Running 9.2 with all updates. Please confirm or reject my assumptions.
9.2 uses xorg. correct? Anything written about X should be written to xorg.conf correct?
Here is my point. When I installed 9.2 all of the parameters of my monitor were written to xorg.conf. I changed out the monitor to a new tft/lcd monitor. Sax wrote the parameters of the new monitor to XF86Config. (The old monitor is still present in xorg.conf)
Now, everything seems to be working correctly but has left me somewhat confused and bewildered. Is my system using xorg, like it should be in 9.2 or has it changed up and is now using XF86Config. Or, is it using some combination of the two. Why did Yast do this?
I'll probably buy 10.0 when it is released so it is probably a moot point. Still would like to understand this though.
Bob S.
I've seen previously, not in 9.3, though I may have changed it, xorg.conf as a symlink to XF86Config. You can do "ls -l /etc/X11" to see what's there.
OK, did that and it shows the xorg.conf file (but not the XFree86.config file) There is no soft link there unless it is a system generated hard link which I cannot see.
/var/log/Xorg.0.log will give you a blow by blow account of what X uses. # grep xorg.conf /var/log/Xorg.0.log
OK did that and I got the same response as below.
(==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf"
Sooo, that means it is using the xorg file but why doesn't the new monitor show in the file and the old one is still present in that file. I do see some references to the new monitor under the nvidia settings though in Xorg.0 log.
Oh well !!!! ????
Bob S.
I would have expected sax2 to have changed the config file, but if it works, the mode lines must be OK. Apart from what is in the xorg.conf, X probes for stuff and the lines have the markers to distinguish where it got the information on every line, from /var/log/Xorg.0.log Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Hello SuSE people.
Asked this question a little over a month ago and got no response. I just need to know the answer to this.
Running 9.2 with all updates. Please confirm or reject my assumptions.
9.2 uses xorg. correct? Anything written about X should be written to xorg.conf correct?
Here is my point. When I installed 9.2 all of the parameters of my monitor were written to xorg.conf. I changed out the monitor to a new tft/lcd monitor. Sax wrote the parameters of the new monitor to XF86Config. (The old monitor is still present in xorg.conf) I have seen this split-brain confusion in 9.x until 9.3 where only xorg.conf
On Thursday 01 September 2005 12:15 am, B. Stia wrote: lives with no XF86Config to be found. The 10.0 betas at http://openSUSE.org aren't having this problem either. Almost made me more insane until I started copying the one that was updated to the one that wasn't (xorg.conf <-> XF86Config) before init 5 after any sax2 work.
Now, everything seems to be working correctly but has left me somewhat confused and bewildered. Is my system using xorg, like it should be in 9.2 or has it changed up and is now using XF86Config. Or, is it using some combination of the two. Why did Yast do this? No clue as to why but a few guesses: no one saw the problem because they didn't change hardware or settings during QA; if they did do this as part of testing then they got lucky and it worked like they thought it should; etc.
Ain't the real world fun?
I'll probably buy 10.0 when it is released so it is probably a moot point. Still would like to understand this though.
Bob S.
Not very many people saw this phenomenon AFAICT but it happened to me every release until 9.3. Stan
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:15, B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Bob S.
If you check in /etc/X11 you will see that xorg.conf is an sym link to XF86Config in 9.2 dont know about 9.3 aint got it aint gunna get it either too unstable . Pete . -- If Bill Gates had gotten LAID at High School do YOU think there would be a Microsoft ? Of course NOT ! You gotta spend a lot of time at your school Locker stuffing underware up your ass to think , I am going to take on the worlds Computer Industry -------:heard on Cyber Radio.:------- AFFA
Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:15, B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Bob S.
If you check in /etc/X11 you will see that xorg.conf is an sym link to XF86Config in 9.2 dont know about 9.3 aint got it aint gunna get it either too unstable .
Pete .
Unstable ... where, what, when and why? News to me, it was 9.2 which was most ill tempered to install or upgrade, but ran sweetly once it was up. 9.3 has been solid, aint seen no problems with it on x86 or x86_64. If you cast your mind back to 9.2 or spend 5 mins in the archives, you'll see what I mean. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:15, B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Bob S.
If you check in /etc/X11 you will see that xorg.conf is an sym link to XF86Config in 9.2 dont know about 9.3 aint got it aint gunna get it either too unstable .
Pete .
Unstable ... where, what, when and why? News to me, it was 9.2 which was most ill tempered to install or upgrade, but ran sweetly once it was up. 9.3 has been solid, aint seen no problems with it on x86 or x86_64. If you cast your mind back to 9.2 or spend 5 mins in the archives, you'll see what I mean. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks Re 9.3 in x86-64: how many 64 bit packages do you use? What is your primary browser? How often does it just crash? Can you access audio/video files, say from the tv networks? How often do apps just close without a warning or an error message? These and other things still keep my 9.3 in the "test"
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:23, Sid Boyce wrote: partition, all real work is done in 9.2. Have made progress, but still experience the arbitrary collapses of windows, especially in firefox. And please keep in mind that 9.2 is only another entry in Grub, so there are no hardware quality issues. 9.2 is stable, only closing kaffeine causes a window crash, all else is solid, albeit a bit slower that 9.3
kanenas wrote:
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:23, Sid Boyce wrote:
Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:15, B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Bob S.
If you check in /etc/X11 you will see that xorg.conf is an sym link to XF86Config in 9.2 dont know about 9.3 aint got it aint gunna get it either too unstable .
Pete .
Unstable ... where, what, when and why? News to me, it was 9.2 which was most ill tempered to install or upgrade, but ran sweetly once it was up. 9.3 has been solid, aint seen no problems with it on x86 or x86_64. If you cast your mind back to 9.2 or spend 5 mins in the archives, you'll see what I mean. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Re 9.3 in x86-64: how many 64 bit packages do you use? What is your primary browser? How often does it just crash? Can you access audio/video files, say from the tv networks? How often do apps just close without a warning or an error message? These and other things still keep my 9.3 in the "test" partition, all real work is done in 9.2. Have made progress, but still experience the arbitrary collapses of windows, especially in firefox. And please keep in mind that 9.2 is only another entry in Grub, so there are no hardware quality issues. 9.2 is stable, only closing kaffeine causes a window crash, all else is solid, albeit a bit slower that 9.3
Hmmmmm.... I haven't really counted, but lots of KDE stuff, digikam, xine, bluetooth, xcdroast, the latest kernels from kernel.org (2.6.13). It's never crashed from 9.1 onwards with upgrades - blasted XP off it and installed 9.1 via ftp, except the recent hard drive failure, replaced it and did a fresh 9.3 install some weeks ago, it runs 24/7 ... Acer 1501LCe laptop, XP3000+, Radeon 9600 Mobile, etc. No problems with audio/video files, except for some audio skips, known to affect laptops. It prints across the network, all the usual stuff. No apps crashing/closing without my intervention. Mozilla is fine, firefox (32-bit) is also OK, I don't use the SuSE firefox because there are no 64-bit plugins available and firefox is my primary browser, but my daughter uses mozilla or konqueror. Rock Solid since day one! Just a couple of hardware problems, first was the CD-RW/DVD which Acer support said was Linux, ha-ha-ha, writing to and corrupting the BIOS, but I find that a good push on it fixes the bad contact, then the hard drive failure. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Sid Boyce wrote:
Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Thursday 01 September 2005 06:15, B. Stia wrote:
Hello SuSE people.
Bob S.
If you check in /etc/X11 you will see that xorg.conf is an sym link to XF86Config in 9.2 dont know about 9.3 aint got it aint gunna get it either too unstable .
Pete .
Unstable ... where, what, when and why? News to me, it was 9.2 which was most ill tempered to install or upgrade, but ran sweetly once it was up. 9.3 has been solid, aint seen no problems with it on x86 or x86_64. If you cast your mind back to 9.2 or spend 5 mins in the archives, you'll see what I mean. Regards Sid.
Agreed. 9.3 here has been very nice. It's been running on a Dell Latitude here as my firewall since it first was released. No reboots. It's also my main desktop OS.
participants (6)
-
B. Stia -
kanenas -
Mitch Thompson -
Peter Nikolic -
Sid Boyce -
Stan Glasoe