DirectFB

[garystampa]

I've been searching for a Linux distro to fall in love with and tinycore/microcore really looks like the one.

I really appreciate the effort to reduce it to its basics versus the bloated "one size fits all" that so many distros have grown into.

I have used DirectFB quite a bit on other Linux distros. I performed a search on the forum for "DirectFB" and found nothing. Is there any reason I can't use DirectFB with MicroCore or is it simply just that no one has mentioned it here?

Thanks in advance.

[Rich]

Hi garystampa
Is this what you are looking for?
http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/faq.html#framebuffer

[garystampa]

Rich,

Thanks for the response. But actually, no that isn't the same idea. I went through numerous attempts to locate a framebuffer access with font rendering with as little overhead as possible and finally landed on DirectFB (which can be found at directfb org). 

The issue went from a no-brainer to a pain-in-the-rear due to the need to support 1920x1080 resolutions. Much to my surprise,  getting Linux to deliver 1920x1080 was much more work than I had ever imagined. No doubt it was also due to the fact I am primarily an embedded developer and always write my own kernels tailored to the task at hand. (Also, I'm sure there are other packages out there, but DirectFB satisfied the requirements and I settled into it.)

I'm going to assume I can simply install DirectFB - because ignorance is bliss - and I really want it to work! I need to get a hard disk tomorrow and bring up MicroCore. I'll report back, but if anybody knows a reason I shouldn't - please let me know. I don't want to start a fire or have the police at my door.

[Rich]

Hi garystampa
Unless this is an embedded system, or there is something about your hardware that precludes it, you might
want to consider using Xorg. I'm currently running Xorg7.5 and staring at my monitor in 1920x1080.

[gutmensch]

DirectFB is easy to build and can be also easily be added as an extension... it's just some mess with the versions (like atm 6 different), which you all need for special purposes or which are not working with one specific program. Please put an extension request in the appropriate subforum, once you have an idea about a needed version

[garystampa]

Rich,

I use X on my current Puppy system and it handles 1920x1080 just fine too. However, the target project is an embedded device and I don't have the memory or processing power for X.

Gutmensch,

Could you please clarify this: "it's just some mess with the versions (like atm 6 different), which you all need for special purposes or which are not working with one specific program. " ?

I'm not sure what you mean.

[gutmensch]

Could you please clarify this: "it's just some mess with the versions (like atm 6 different), which you all need for special purposes or which are not working with one specific program. " ?

Sure, sorry that I wasn't a bit more precise! The Downloads section of DirectFB offers versions 1.0, 1.1, 1.2,1.3, 1.4, 1.5 - and I remember that I had some issues with different versions, when I tried to build a program like splashy, which uses it. So the point is - I make an extension for 1.5 and you say "heya, but it needs the complete Mesa-stack and kernel modules, I have to use an older version with less dependencies!" That's why I'm asking about your special use-case. Which version did you use before?

[garystampa]

Thanks - that makes sense. I was using 1.4 and 1.5 but I don't use much in the way of special features. Version 1.0 would probably handle what I want. I use it for the following:

1. Convert JPGs to BMPs in-memory (I read the JPG file to a buffer, and then use DirectFB to decompress it to a BMP so I can work on the BMP with my own effects).
2. Put BMPs to the screen.
3. Render text to the screen

But I know what you mean about versions! I typically stay one or two versions behind the latest.