At 11:57 PM 1/11/2005 +0000, Jeremy Abbott wrote: [...]
I do have to ask you why using X is good advice (not to say your wrong), my understanding, is that X is cobbled together adding code ontop of code, to the point where it is barely readable.
Well ... your concern about not having enough time to configure fluxbox suggests you are not eager to take on a lot of configuration work, and X provides a standard that lets you (and the people who write software) avoid a lot of customizing. X itself could no doubt be better ... what software couldn't? ... but used in a lightweight configuration, it's not really that bad.
Aside from the bloat (of which I was primarily writing of kde and gnome),
This is quite irrelevent to the discussion, since we've all been suggesting ways to avoid use of KDE and Gnome (though not necessarily the underlying gtk and qt libraries, since it's the apps you choose that dictate whether they are needed).
I also have some minor display problems with X. I have tried my monitor manufacturers range of vertical and horizonatal syncs, but notice a flicker. I have also tried tried the exact values my monitor tells me I have when I am in Windowz XP (which is still on the system as backup, even though I have abandoned it), and it doesn't flicker, but I see some kindof funky lines, almost like my display is being slightly folded in on the top and bottom. This could also have to do with the generic radeon driver I'm running. I suppose I shall try installing the Ati drivers for X.
Maybe. If you want help on this, you're going to need to discuss the details. This is your first mention of display problems, so naturally my, and others', prior reponses didn't consider it as an issue.
[...]And the basic response you already received is also right ... apps familiar to us as X-based use shared libraries specific to X. They cannot write to a "raw" framebuffer.To this I have to ask why? I know for a fact that I am not the only person who has expressed this concern. Where is the next generation X server? Don't tell me Xorg, cause that is what I'm running, and it aint that different (not to sound to condescending).
I don't understand your question. X apps cannot write to a raw framebuffer because they use shared libraries that assume the presence of an X server. Is there something about that design decision that you do not understand? If so, what? (I understand that you do not *like* the limitation.)
And I don't know what you mean by "next generation X server". Generally speaking, software for mainstream workstations is relatively heavyweight, simply because they have the power to cope with heavyweight. Any "next generation" X server we see from the traditional X sources will most likely be distinguished by added features, not by more compact size. Why? Because that's what interests that subset of developers, and Open Source projects tend to be motivated more by developer interest that consumer demand. And if you don't run KDE or Gnome, no current version of X is all *that* heavyweight anyway.
If you are looking for something *extremely* lightweight, you probably want to look at alternatives to X written for the embedded-systems world (PDAs and the like)... projects like microwindows and matchbox. These super-lightweight apps tend not to show up in mainstream distros, though, and since they use different shared libraries, they do not support mainstream X apps, only apps that have been written or adapted for them.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
