Re: What are framebuffer devices good for?

[Dave Price <davep@kinaole.org>]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 11:06:02AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 13:47, andrej hocevar wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 08:06:52AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > Then I got a new monitor: a Sony LCD. 
> > And here I am, glad that FB exists!
> 
> Still, though, why does an LCD monitor need the framebuffer?

My LCD on the desktop works fine like this:

Section "Monitor"
        Identifier   "Multisync 1530v"
        HorizSync    28.0 - 49.0
        VertRefresh  43.0 - 72.0
        Option       "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Device"
        Identifier  "gx2"
        Driver      "s3virge"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
        Identifier      "Default Screen"
        Device          "gx2"
        Monitor         "Multisync 1530v"
        DefaultDepth    24
        SubSection "Display"
                Depth           24
                Modes           "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection

I do use framebuffer on my laptop, and it sure was easy getting X to run
that way; of course, I do not have access to whatever hardware whiz bang
the laptop's video kit has to offer...

I think framebuffer is a good thing to get generic performance from
unknown hardware.  Also, it makes extended video modes really easy to
access for console users.  I tried those, and they are cool, but the
first app I use in console only is mutt, and it does not like weird
video layouts too well so that nix'd that.

(but, the little tux at boot is pretty cool)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org