From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

I changed this redirect to instead of redirecting to "X Window System" it redirects to "XF86Config" (because the files are nearly identical). If XF86Config is not changed in the future to something like "X config file" or "xorg.conf" (this is the name in we might want to change this page to redirect to " Server". -- 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert to 19:58, 3 March 2008[edit]

This article (example xorg.conf) was removed on grounds "Wikipedia is not the Linux documentation". The similar article 'XF86config' only provides a description of its respective configuration file. Unfortunately this can be a bit vague, and it seems that the very-well documented xorg.conf submitted on "19:58, 3 March 2008" provides a much more apt overview.

While Wikipedia is certainly not the Linux Documentation, it strives to provide a very broad scope of information. Reimplementing "19:58, 3 March 2008" certainly serves this purpose and furthermore complements the article 'X.Org Server'. The comments in the provided example Xorg.conf back up the sparse information regarding AIGLX(see Wikipedia article), XGL(see that article as well) as well as the NVidia-specific implementation.

Since Xorg is now modular xorg.conf is pretty volatile. This is with the addition of xrandr 1.2 which changes dual-screen layouts considerably. (Notwithstanding that Nvidia, ATI and intel implementations vary to some extent). That would mean this article would have to contain considerably more information and be updated frequently.

It seems to me that the X server is a rather important topic, certainly not specific enough to be nit-picky about "Linux Documentation". Its equivalent is Microsoft's WDDM ( Whereas WDDM is static, X's end-user configurability seems to necessitate a decent Xorg.conf Wikipedia article.

Some links/documentation: (yeah its pretty long)

I humbly disagree. This looks like a Linux man page. It's technical documentation for the window server, and that isn't encyclopedic. Roothog (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Its nowhere near the man page of xorg.conf, which is very technical. This is a more of a somewhat thorough example. Like a picture. Being so complete, its able to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the capabilities and configuration of an X server ... but it needs to be updated.
I totally think this page should be in wikipedia. It's no different than if you wanted to look up the Declaration of Independence. You'd expect to find at least an extract, if not the whole thing. It's only what is in an example file, not a manual. If you look at the whole article, you'd find it tells you a little information about what it is, and an EXMAPLE file. Not how to make a custom version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Owens (talkcontribs) 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep it, I agree with the post above me. I use this page all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

xkcd link[edit]

I removed the link to XKCD ([1] because it's not relevant to the article. This discussion has been on almost every article that has been referenced to by XKCD. Rchard2scout (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet XKCD's fans claim to be intellectual and to love Wikipedia. It would be nice if they stopped vandalizing every page that could remotely be related to XKCD, but oh well. (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism just because you don't think it's relevant, you worthless deletionist data-murdering scum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The previous poster obviously does not understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The previous poster obviously does not understand humor. :) (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and they are a betrayal of humanity. Our data is who we are, and many of us contributed to adding it to Wikipedia, only to later see it deleted by deletionist censors. Here's how you tell if something is notable: If 1 person besides the originator arrive at the page in the first year it's up, THEN IT'S NOTABLE. Deletionist scum have ruined Wikipedia. There's useful data that I have to go to the edit history to find. USEFUL data, but buried by bureaucratic monsters. if someone comes here for that data, then it's notable. Nothing humorous about deletionists at all: they are causing net damage to the integrity of Wikipedia by destroying useful information because they'll anal retentive anal fissures. When I see a plea for help for funding for Wikipedia, I no longer click the banner. I hope either deletionism is banned on Wikipedia or Wikipedia dies and is replaced by an online encyclopedia that has proper standards.

I agree with the above poster, oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The data wasn't deleted. It's still at XKCD. Documenting XKCD is not the point of this encyclopedia. Take your rants elsewhere. (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not documenting xkcd, its mentioning xorf.conf's presence in the media; furthermore, documing everything IS the point of Wikipedia: TO BECOME THE SUM OF ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, deletionist. I'll take my rants anywhere I please, but you can take your censorship and vile deletionism elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I came to this page from the xkcd cartoon. I was not familiar with "Xorg.conf." I have found that Wikipedia is the best way to start learning something about any new subject. I understand the deleter's argument that the topic is highly specialized computer geek "inside baseball," and thus is of arguable "notability." However, its "notability" has now been greatly increased by the fact that it has just become highly relevant to fans of the popular web cartoon xkcd, who sometimes require "subcaptions for the geek-speak impaired." (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Philip the Foole

Erm, It's not relevant. Yes, XKCD is notable, and mentioned X11 (and mentions a lot of things) but there are many other publications that are just as notable, even more so, that mention things on a daily basis, such as media outlets with documentaries or TV Shows, but for some reason the page for Cheesecake doesn't mention that popular TV Show Friends had an episode featuring cheesecakes. What you need to ask yourself is this : "How does knowing that SUBJECT X was featured in MEDIA Y help a person looking for information about X?" For example, the page for Dodge Charger B-body has a link to the page about the General Lee, which helped made this car popular. The TV Show Dukes of Hazzard and the General Lee are part of what this car represents and are indissociable from the cars image. On the other hand, someone looking to find out about and X11 probably won't benefit from knowing that it was recently featured in a webcomic, and the software has no link to Xkcd apart from a brief mention. So if references to Xkcd are removed, it's simply because otherwise we'd need to add EVERY SINGLE mention by every notable media outlet to all subjects mentioned, which would just make wikipedia unreadable and bloated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The previous contributor suggests asking "How does knowing that SUBJECT X was featured in MEDIA Y help a person looking for information about X?" I understand the author's point, and it is well-presented. Perhaps relevance is in the eye of the beholder. I love well-written and helpful computer documentation. Seriously. I try my hand at it myself now and then, generally without much success. However, I also think it is important to be able to laugh at sacred cows, particularly one's own. I have no connection to Xorg.conf, and no particular axe to grind for either side in this discussion. However, if I was the author of the program, or a frequent user, I would definitely have that cartoon posted on my cubicle wall. So, getting back to the previous contributor's question "How does knowing that SUBJECT X was featured in MEDIA Y help a person looking for information about X?" it seems to me that almost anyone who was looking for information about this particular "subject X" would find it funny and relevant to learn that it was roasted in "Media Y." (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Philip the Foole

XKCD does not merely reference xorg.conf, it presents a very negative view of it. If I were researching something, and found a link to a geeky source that thought something was hight useful or highly broken or had some other view on the subject, I would be grateful for the next increase in my understanding of what I'm researching. Technical data as to function is not the only type of data that is of value; somethings perception in the wider world is also very improtant, which is why so many articles have an, "In Popular Culture" link... oh, and the XKCD wemcomic also gives a clue as to xorg.conf that would take someone else hours or days or even more of working with xorg.conf to figure out. To that end, the link to xkcd is restored, and please finish the debate here before removing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been content up to now to watch the IPs duke this one out, but here I've got to step in. 96.x, per the bold-revert-discuss process, you don't get to re-insert something that's been reverted until consensus has been reached; that's edit warring. Also, all of you: Calling other editors "scum", calling their points of view "rants", and saying they don't understand notability all amount to personal attacks, which violate policy. The latest edit inserts original research into the encyclopedia: saying it conveys a "negative view" amounts to an interpretation of a primary source. This essay explains why this cartoon really doesn't belong in this article at all. I've removed it. Lagrange613 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold-Revert is NOT policy ( AND it's not a reversion at all: it's a change. The original was a valuable reference xkcd under the "External Links" section. The change I made was to add a valuable reference to xckd under the "In Popular Culture" section. Also, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once, so you should stop reverting the bold changes. Also, essays are not Wikipedia policies. I'm putting the link back, because if I was reading about xorg.conf for the first time, I would want to know about the xkcd strip, and Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge; I do not want to have to go to another online data repository to find out that a very important medium has mentioned something I'm researching. Would we even be having this discussion if 60 Minutes had said some things about xorg.conf? Is it that you don't believe that xkcd is significant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your change and stop edit warring. It is a common mistake on the part of new editors to assume that the arguments in essays can be disregarded because they're essays. WP:XKCD elaborates the policy WP:OR in a specific context. While you're welcome to disagree with the essay, you can't just ignore its arguments when it's been cited. And it happens to explain in explicit detail why this link is inappropriate here. Lagrange613 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)