Setting up a second monitor

[Antony Gelberg]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
> 
>>> Hmmm... looks coplicated. 
>>
>>
>> Why?
> 
> 
> It's an impression. I think it looks complicated. Even for someone who 
> has configured X.conf by hand before (me).
> 
>>> Jean, what setup do you have? two video cards?
>>
>>
>> The OP explained his hardware setup.
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be useful by asking relevant questions. Do you feel that 
> your email is useful.

Yes, that's why I sent it.

>> If you don't know what a BusID is, it's explained in the config file 
>> man page.  If people don't read the manual, things may well look 
>> complicated.
> 
> 
> The X config file is, in my honest opinion, quite complicated. Throwing 
> documentation at something complicated doesn't make it less complicated, 
> it makes it well documented.

Either way, the documentation aids user-understanding.

> 
>> One can always man lspci to find out what the program does.
> 
> 
> Therefore I should never tell people what any command does? 

I didn't say that.

> Giving a 
> one-sentence description of lspci is helpful. Saying RTFM is (1) not 
> helpful and (2) contrary to the Ubuntu mailing list guidelines.
> 
>>> Configuring X is not for the faint of heart.
>>
>>
>> Enough with the FUD.
> 
> 
> You are getting silly. Do you suppose that Microsoft has hired me to 
> join this list and say that the X config file is complicated?

I didn't say that either.

>> Are you suggesting that everyone who has configured X is strong as an ox?
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the expression "not for the faint of heart"?

Do you often answer a question with a question?

>> For all we know the OP has configured it already.
> 
> 
> So, I should not offer to help under the assumption that she has already 
> solved it? I'd rather offer to help.

It's not quite clear to me what help you're actually providing, not that 
that matters in and of itself.  I feel that this is not a complicated 
request from the user and why make it out to be so?

>> So you haven't read it but know not to recommend it.
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of man pages. I read man pages regularly. Man pages are 
> written with a distinctive style which takes getting used to and I 
> wouldn't recommend them to a new user.

Whereas I would.

>> The OP has been using computers for over 35 years, so let's assume 
>> that he's got something in the brain department.
> 
> 
> Jean is a very intelligent woman, but that doesn't make her a Linux 
> expert anymore than my being an intelligent man makes me knowledgeable 
> of (say) biology. So I try to provide helpful information and offer 
> direct assistance in configuring X.
> 
>>> Man pages are not really intended for that.
>>
>>
>> Man pages are not intended for what?
> 
> 
> Man pages are not meant to introduce a new user to Linux. They are not 
> tutorials, they are reference information for people who are already 
> knowledgeable. The appropriate documentation for new users is not man 
> pages but how-tos and tutorials. It's a different type of documentation.

Is it a fact that man pages are inappropriate for new users or just your 
opinion?  In my opinion they are useful for any level of user, as are 
the other types of documentation.  If one wants to understand a config 
file, a how-to or tutorial may help a little, but really there is 
nothing as focused or accurate as the man page.

For the OP's task, there is no option but to edit the config file.  If 
the how-to is not clear, the man page is a good next port-of-call. 
There is no compulsion for the user to read the entire page as he can 
just scan it for the relevant sections.