dontzap - a application to revert dontzap setting

[psmith]

David wrote:
> 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
>   
did you also go to a 'special' school? lol ;) o/j

most development releases may have this in place now (tbh i've not 
checked as i'm not following the dev releases of any distro but fedora, 
but i'll take your word on this) but when it gets out to the released 
versions the masses use then there will be more complaints for sure, as 
these are the people who mostly will be left with the choice of a hard 
reboot when the find out that ctrl-alt-backspace doesn't work when the x 
session throws a wobbly.

yes i run rawhide, and also thankfully F10, but when F11 is on a release 
then i'll start doing the rebuilds for x as it wont take much work to 
keep up then, for now i have the ability to switch to a vt, i shouldn't 
need to but i there we go

well i wouldn't notice the blinking cursor default change as i've had it 
disabled for a long time now, not only in the terminal but in all of my 
apps too

and as for your suggestion that fedora always follows upstream, i think 
you need to take a closer look as this is not the case ;)

phil