dontzap - a application to revert dontzap setting

[David]

On 4/8/2009 9:55 AM, psmith wrote:
> David wrote:

>> Then I guess that you will have to compile your own Xorg with the switch
>> turned on?  :-)

>> Seriously. From what I read 'they' are trying to make Xorg better able to
>> handle common things without a conf file. But Xorg still does use a conf
>> file if it is exists. In other words? The dontzap that you set stays. As
>> well as the nonfree drivers that some use and need the conf file.

>> Relax man. You'll live longer.  8-)   

> you know it may seem from my messages that i'm raging about this but
> it's not the case, and if you can read emotions from typed text you are
> a special individual ;)


:-)  Why thank you. I like to think that I am special.


> i am a very chilled i'm my life and in fact i have already mentioned
> that i will compile x with the years old standards set, heck i may even
> put up a repo for others who wont like this change to use (and trust me
> when i say that as more and more distro's implement this new x there
> will be lots of those people) but i still say that fedora should take
> the lead and revert this stupid change as most who have posted on this
> in the fedora lists are against it, they have diverted from upstream on
> many different things and i don't see why this should be different, and
> then let those who want this change regress to using an xorg.conf


Since this is the development list can I take it that you run a Rawhide
setup or do you run a 'release' setup? I ask because trying to keep up with
Xorg in Rawhide would be a real chore. That is why I suggested the 'dont
zap' section in Xorg.

As far as 'this' Xorg version? I can't say for *all* distributions but *all*
of the ones that I am familiar, the major ones,  have switched to this version.

I now wonder just what the thread will look like when someone notices that
they turned of the 'blinking' in the terminal cursor?  :-p
-- 


  David