On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:55:50PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > | On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > | > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > | > [...] > | > | gpm is a massive pain in the ass to deal with, > | > > | > Care to explain? (I disagree, gpm is a piece of cake) > | > | gpm complicates configuring XF86 badly from my experience. It's like > | trying to grow anything hydroponically: It can be done, but it really > | complicates things. > > The complication is eliminated if you follow two guidelines : > 1) don't try to have two processes fighting over a device, let > gpm have the device and X reads from gpm's repeater > > 2) use the same protocol for both (duh! it's the same mouse, it > better be the same protocol :-)) (and set gpm's > repeat_type to raw) > > I've never had any interaction problems following these rules. I have > seen many people get confused and/or misconfigured by the combination, > but the above has always worked. > Ok. This thread has piqued (not to be confused with peaked or peeked) my interest. I've just set up a Debian machine and was hoping to use gpm, since I like to use alot of console apps in virtual terminals. Having gpm running was wreaking (not to be confused with reeking) havoc with the mouse under X - even though I had X trying to read mouse output from /dev/gpmdata. The only way I could get the mouse cursor to get back to normal behavior under X was killall gpm. So, what was I doing wrong? I'd be delighted if I could get gpm to cooperate with the mouse cursor under X.
Thanks, James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
