Enable our Xfbdev?

[labeas]

TC64's default of using Xfbdev, seems to work well.
Also considering that X11 is known to be a monster, I'm resisiting
installing it to replace our Xfbdev.

Recent decades' evolution of internet has degenerated from <where to
get info> to <how to avoid being swamped by garbage>. Ie. the vulgar
html has replaced all other protocols.

Compared to common "graphical-browsers", our `links` is brilliant for
serious collecting and storing info/knowledge -- in contrast to the.
childish/animal-like "reach out for what you want WHEN you want it".

For times that one needs graphical images, our `opera-12` is quite
good [but its mail & NNTP setup is very complex].
I'd like to understand how opera-12 manages with Xfbdev ?

On a previous non TC installation, I remember that links?links2?elinks
was able to render graphical images in consol/VT-mode.  Amazingly !!
I can't remember if it handled [? Latex] Math formulae?
Currently: `links -g` == "Graphics not enabled when compiling".

Have any TC-users knowledge of graphics rendering in VT-mode
eg. links/links2/elinks VT graphical operation?
=========================
Being located in the 3rd [going 4th] world, I can't rely on TC's
main idea: "don't bother to keep your own executable-files, just
just grab then off the cloud".
 ========
PS. How does the brilliant-app `wily` also run on Xfbdev, surely
designed for X11 ?
I've got a related [to wily] 32bit killer-app which runs under X11;
how should I experiment to see if/how to port it to TC64.
It is related to the 32bit LinuxNativeOberon which runs nicely,
for Framebuffer setup, on TC64:VT-mode.
It's confusing that/how 32bit LinuxNativeOberon runs on TC64, with
good font-sizes ...etc.

[Juanito]

I've got a related [to wily] 32bit killer-app which runs under X11;
how should I experiment to see if/how to port it to TC64.

Grab the source code and compile it on CorePure64 using the instructions in the extension making section of the wiki.

[Rich]

Hi labeas

TC64's default of using Xfbdev, seems to work well.
Also considering that X11 is known to be a monster, I'm resisiting
installing it to replace our Xfbdev.

I'd like to put that section of your statement that I highlighted in bold to the test. I'm presuming you are referring to memory
or CPU usage. My primary and lowest spec machine is an 800 Mhz 686 processor with 512 MB of RAM. Here is the output from  top:

Code: [Select]

top - 10:02:10 up 358 days, 22:46,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05
Tasks: 319 total,   1 running, 318 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s):  3.6%us,  2.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 94.4%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Mem:    512180k total,   489296k used,    22884k free,    30840k buffers
Swap:  1047548k total,    75312k used,   972236k free,   162728k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND           
 3752 tc        20   0  234m 189m  16m S  3.6 37.8  46:56.84 opera-11           
 3747 tc        20   0 21044  12m 9220 S  0.0  2.5   0:37.56 sylpheed           
 9692 root      20   0 55176  10m 3140 S  0.3  2.2   1923:54 Xorg               
25162 tc        20   0 19764 8208 6168 S  0.0  1.6  15:59.74 geany             
 9732 tc        20   0  6964 3236 1424 S  0.0  0.6  13:34.91 wbar               
 4468 tc        20   0  3232 1444 1136 S  0.3  0.3   0:01.27 aterm             
20791 tc        20   0  3628 1276 1120 S  0.0  0.2   0:02.06 aterm             
 9720 tc        20   0  4792 1220  992 S  0.0  0.2  12:01.97 flwm_topside       
19187 tc        20   0  3496 1164 1008 S  0.0  0.2   0:06.44 aterm
At 2.2% Xorg is consuming even less memory than my Email clients 2.5%, hardly a monster.
Since you are running 64 bits I would think your hardware is far more capable than what I'm running, though I would be curious
about your hardwares specs. If you still feel that  Xorg  is to big a load for your hardware to handle,  Xvesa has a smaller
footprint.

Being located in the 3rd [going 4th] world, I can't rely on TC's
main idea: "don't bother to keep your own executable-files, just
just grab then off the cloud".

OK, all you did here is cherry pick one line from the  "Modes of Operation"  section of the  http://tinycorelinux.net/concepts.html
page while ignoring the rest of the content. If you continue to the section titled  "The Mount Mode of Operation: TCE/Install"
(only another 2 paragraphs down)  it clearly states:

This is the most widely used and recommended method for using Tiny Core.
See an overview of the system architecture of this mode.

 In Mount Mode:

Applications are stored locally in a directory named tce on a persistent store, .e..g, a supported disk partition (ext2,ext3.ext4,vfat, or fat)
Applications are optionally mounted on reboot (see onboot.lst in forum and wiki).
Mounting applications saves RAM for other uses.

[PDP-8]

xfbdev is bad news for my box...

On my lower end 64-bit box, (1.3ghz dual-core / 4g ram) xfbdev is almost unusable.  Well, it is if you don't drag any windows around.  The i910 driver didn't make any difference.

Made me wonder if fltk had a wireframe-drag option that might relieve that issue.  If I have to move a window around, the only sane way to do it is to roll it up, move the roll, and unroll it in place.

The only solution was to go to xorg, which to me is not as light as possibly Xvesa, especially since I'm really happy with fltk and an xterm.  I have other heavyweight boxes for multimedia entertainment, so I don't dedicate TC to that duty.

However, because of my lightweight needs for TC on that box, I just went to the 32-bit release which does use (or make available) Xvesa.

That's what I love about TC - I can work it around nearly any issue!

[Rich]

Hi PDP-8

On my lower end 64-bit box, (1.3ghz dual-core / 4g ram) xfbdev is almost unusable ....
The only solution was to go to xorg, which to me is not as light as possibly Xvesa, ...

With those specs, I wouldn't think Xorg should be a problem. Regarding Xvesa, I found this:

Forgot to ask: Why no xvesa for 64bit?

It's not possible to execute VESA bios calls in 64-bit mode. Xorg's vesa driver has an emulator, so it is able to do it nowadays.

Also, your understanding of the lists is correct. The ISOs just have a different setup you'd usually have.

[labeas]

I shouldn't be posting this and perhaps it won't arrive.
But I don't want to miss the opportunity to test/record the freak action:
 TC64 seems to be <leaking drastically>
I'm NOW running TC64 : chroot <an old 32B Slakware partn on a USB-disk>,
which AFAIK should NOT but DOES connect to inet [via WiFi] although I didn't
<mount -bind : dev & proc ...>.
So a simple `chroot` won't allow you to <inet>; or am I thinking of the old
connect via modem, which needs also to <mount -bind> to /dev ??
  Also I'm using Slakware's snownews [an RSS app] which I vaguely remember
is a reader ? Or does RSS also write? Currently, this snownews is set up
to use `links`. I'm wondering if its using TC's links or Slak's.
I thought Slak's snownews was setup to use to use lynx? Serious <leaking>?
   BTW I disaprove of the post asking <wny don't we follow the fad and
have httpS>. The only reason that I'm using 64bit, is that after all my
GOOD OLD 32B stuff was stolen, I was told that the local 3G-stik needed 64B
so I bought a 64B laptop.

[coreplayer2]

I was told that the local 3G-stik needed 64B
so I bought a 64B laptop.

As far as regular notebooks go, I doubt if any manufacturer is making a 32bit only notebook anymore..!!   

labeas it's time to stop living in the dark ages..

 

[labeas]

>    As far as regular notebooks go, I doubt if any manufacturer is making a 32bit only > notebook anymore..!!
 ....
I want to speak to the engineYear, who can address the subtle queries; not the sales clerk.
AFAIK Intel moved to 64B many years ago. OTOH if you buy a laptop today it will be loaded
with a <WinTel> 64B **OS**, and with the new disk partitioning scheme, no longer leaving
the 'tail' free for linux, it's a problem to keep the hardware M$ capable [in case of a
device which is not linux-capable] and use it for one's accumulated 32B software.
......
Since TC specifically has a 64bit classification, and by default all the rest are 32bit,
*OPERATING SYSTEMS*, how could you think a writer is refering to 32b Wintel *HARDWARE* ?