On 2008-07-16, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ____/ SomeBloke on Wednesday 16 July 2008 12:27 : \____
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:34767215.GYd7gKJuYM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Persistent Configuration Options For X.Org Drivers
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | When it comes to proprietary drivers, AMD has almost completely
>>>> eliminated
>>>> | their dependence on the xorg.conf and NVIDIA too is eliminating their
>>>> need of
>>>> | this method for configuring the X server. With the fglrx Linux driver,
>>>> | ATI/AMD has developed the AMDPCSDB, or the AMD Persistent Configuration
>>>> Store
>>>> | Data-Base. The AMDPCSDB, which is somewhat modeled after the Windows
>>>> | registry, is their proprietary replacement for managing all persistent
>>>> | display/graphics-related options. Values for overrode options like
>>>> | anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are written to this persistent
>>>> | configuration store as well as the layout and configuration of multiple
>>>> | screens. All of these AMD options are applied in real-time and will
>>>> remain
>>>> | persistent upon rebooting the computer or X if it's been written to the
>>>> | AMDPCSDB.
Sounds a lot like what I do when I have xorg.conf open in another window
while the xserver running or when I use nvidia-xconfig in a similar fashion.
Since the Xorg process basically "owns" that file there's really no need
for any fancy maninpulation of it. This is all really quite silly.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=xorg_driver_persistent&num=1
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - "With the fglrx Linux driver, ATI/AMD has developed the AMDPCSDB, or
>>> the AMD Persistent Configuration Store Data-Base. The AMDPCSDB, which is
>>> somewhat modeled after the Windows registry, is their proprietary
>>> replacement for managing all persistent display/graphics-related options."
>>>
>>> Obviously you linux loons now believe that a configuration database (ie
>>> "Registry") is now a good idea since linux is now doing the same thing as
>>> Windows did over a decade ago.
Nope.
In order to be properly modeled after the Windows registry it would
have to CONTAIN EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AND EVERY USER.
As it is, I am not sure an "xorg only db" would be any different
in abstract terms from the configuration file format from 1994.
[deletia]
Also, this is what ATI is doing.
This is a (mediocre) corporate entity.
They very well may be replicating the Windows style environment they
are used to dealing with. Companies do strange things. That's why it
is better to be independent of any single one of them.
[deletia]
They should spend their time improving the performance of their gear.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
