Difference between revisions of "User talk:Ndt"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Netcfg/Wireless networking/Wireless Setup: re)
(Nice Addition to Security Page!)
Line 8: Line 8:
[[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User talk:AdamT|talk]]) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
[[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User talk:AdamT|talk]]) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for the feedback! I've been working on improving that page in my free time over the past couple of weeks, and I was really glad to see that you appreciated my early edits.
:Much appreciated,
:[[User:Ndt|Ndt]] ([[User talk:Ndt|talk]]) 01:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
== Questions on DisplayLink ==
== Questions on DisplayLink ==

Revision as of 22:54, 17 July 2013

Nice Addition to Security Page!

Hi Ndt,

I just wanted to thank you for the edit to the Security#Disk_encryption page. I definitely think your additions and changes clarified that section.


AdamT (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've been working on improving that page in my free time over the past couple of weeks, and I was really glad to see that you appreciated my early edits.
Much appreciated,
Ndt (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions on DisplayLink

Thank you for your contribution to the DisplayLink wiki page! I am planning on buying a ThinkVision LT1421 as well, but I am just wondering...are you able to see the DisplayLink device in the output of xrandr? Is it possible to simply turn on and specify the relative position of DisplayLink display by using xrandr instead of Xinerama? Thanks! If you would kindly reply by writing on my discussion page or email me at [...] that would be great! Thanks in advance! --Jiehanzheng (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


I emailed a reply, which I'll copy here:

Hey Jiehan,

You can see my progress on DisplayLink on Arch detailed here. Unfortunately nobody replied, and a true solution was never achieved. It looks like true two-monitor DisplayLink support is still in its early days on Linux.

No, I'm not able to see the output on xrandr: I have only been able to get it working by running two separate X servers and making them talk using the ancient x2x tool (1998 or something). I'm still planning on updating the wiki page more to reflect these changes, but for now I've had little luck.

Kernel level support is good, and getting better as udl (the recent rewrite, I think driven by Red Hat) slowly replaces udlfb, but it's a process.

Supposedly there was a working driver for X back in the day, called xf86-video-displaylink, but since recent X.org updates (bug 50762) that driver won't even compile. I've been working on improving my C skills to see if I can go in and fix that driver myself, but even if I can (which is no guarantee) it'll still probably take a few months. Presumably, this driver would enable xrandr to work and everything to be nice and pretty.

Suggestion: don't buy that Lenovo monitor. I own it. Support is garbage on Linux. Unless you're a kernel hacker who also is deeply familiar with writing Xorg display drivers, I would highly suggest against it.

I don't suspect we are going to see anything in the vein of working USB display hotplugging under Linux until early-mid 2014.

The exception to this rule is if you want single-monitor support. I plan on picking up a Raspberry Pi (or similar device with wifi capabilities) and setting it up with my ThinkVision and and one of those ThinkPad USB keyboards and making my own lightweight ThinkPad. That's a cool project and it will make the display worth owning. If you want it for the purpose of running a dual-monitor xorg, though, avoid the ThinkVision at all costs.

Ndt (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Netcfg/Wireless networking/Wireless Setup

Hi, I'd like to understand what you've done to Netcfg (then renamed Wireless networking): is it possible that you've just copy-pasted there the content of Wireless Setup also doing some changes in the same edit? If that's the case, it's not how you should have handled it, this way you've duplicated an article and lost all of its history in its copy: you should have requested the deletion of Netcfg, then you could have moved Wireless Setup to a new title if you felt there was a better one, like Wireless networking, and then you should have performed further adaptations. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(And anyway Netcfg should better be redirected to Netctl. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC))

I am incredibly sorry about my changes to the Netcfg page. That was stupid, and it was supposed to be an edit to Wireless Setup that removes netcfg references. Please do not waste your time trying to understand the edit; it was on the wrong page and should be redirected as you stated.
Good thing it happened on the the Netcfg page, at least. I would be even more upset with myself had I done it to a page that matters more.
Thank you for being polite about it, however. I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I will be considerably more careful about this in the future.
Ndt (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the change history for that page, now (and the subsequent renaming), I can see why this must be ridiculously unusual for a wiki administrator. Thank you for trying to understand this. I think what should happen is the new Wireless networking/Netcfg page be renamed back to Netcfg, then setup to properly redirect to Netctl. Subsequently, Wireless networking should redirect to Wireless Setup.
This is only my suggestion, of course, but I appreciate your work in getting this resolved. Ndt (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I learnt to appreciate your edits in the recent days, so I was surprised to see you doing that, there surely had to be some reason behind :)
It should all be fixed now, I've moved here your reply as explained in Help:Discussion#User talk pages.
One last thing: is it possible that you're using an external editor for editing the articles? That would explain how you've managed to paste the entire page into another one... Also, note well, that would explain why you removed some space-only lines in Wireless Setup, as it's probably been done automatically by your editor: always review your edits because sometimes space-only lines are meaningful for MediaWiki, see for example:

(look at the source text)
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes, occasionally use vim for my edits, if I find the default editor is not powerful enough. Unfortunately, I am not very experienced with wiki editing in general (I am not sure I had ever edited a wiki page before Arch) so I have obviously made a couple of mistakes with the software. I am going to do some research in properly setting up my editor and will more closely review my edits until I have ironed out these kinks.
I do really strive to make high-quality edits, however, so I appreciate your help in climbing this learning curve. Not that it is exceptionally difficult; I am just new.
--Ndt (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)