On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 06:15:58AM +0000, Simon Hepburn wrote: > Marc Wilson wrote: > > > I know how to set X up to use the second head on the G400/450/550... what I > > don't understand is the fascination people have with using a framebuffer. > > What's the attraction? What does it do for you? Is it just to get these > > annoying console sizes? The idea of unaccelerated X has such appeal? > > You are not alone... > > "No sane person should use frame buffers if they have the choice. > Like your mama told you: "Just say no". Use text-mode and X11, and be > happy." 1. I see no point in using framebuffers (FB) with X. 2. I make a good use of FB in console-mode. The alternative is SVGATextMode, which I used quite happily until FB was included in the official kernel-sources. I will not go back though. The thing is that modern (my Matrox Millenium might not count as modern anymore, but I think the same applies even to "modern" ones) graphics card have too slow text mode clocks. With FB in 1600x1200 and that cool SUN12x22 font, I have a nice console with 133 cols and 54 rows, that text-mode just can't give (with Matrox anyway). (If I want more chars I can use 1864x1400 which gives 155x63, but on a 17" I find that a little too small for regular use.) -- Note that I use Debian version 3.0 Linux emac140 2.4.17 #1 sön feb 10 20:21:22 CET 2002 i686 unknown Hans Ekbrand
Attachment:
pgpgcxMdBIwiW.pgp
Description: PGP signature