Tiny Core Linux
Tiny Core Extensions => TCE Q&A Forum => Topic started by: floppy on April 17, 2011, 03:14:45 PM
-
Hello,
as per advise of gerald_clark, in order to use xorg7.4 instead of Xvesa (for trying to use skype), I am now moving to microcore (still in the testphase).
So,
- I loaded microcore.gz in the same directory than the previous existing tinycore.gz
- created a new microorg.lst which content Xlibs, Xprogs, Xorg-7.4, flwm_topside, wbar, appbrowser-cli and mc (midnight commander).
- I created a new Microcore entry in my menu.lst of the grub directory .. with the bootcode "lst=microorg.lst" and all other boot codes from the TCL I used before.
and now, there are few error messages during boot.
The first one just before the booted app called Xorg-fonts appear on the screen "touch: usr ... Xorg-fonts. permission denied. etc. and other loaded apps.. (not all).
And now, when microcore is booted, I have MC (midnight commander) as application on boot and as "on demand" (from the TCL version which runs in parallel).
It seems, I will have to clean the TCL version before I use MC in parallel. This is not very disturbing for me.
Just wanted to mention it.
Update: when I go into the AppAudit, I dont find the loaded app "mc" listed in microorg.lst, but the list of onboot.lst from the previous TCL. I really need to clean my pc ...;-). It means for me, despite the input microorg.lst in the bootcode, later the name is lost in an onboot.lst exist on the same directory? to be verified (not today) if a deleting of the onboot.lst will solve the issue..
-
Interesting problem to solve.
-
IMHO it is far easier to test X setup by using text boot code.
After booting to prompt type startx
-
The interesting problem is the disconnect between onboot and ondemand with the lst option.
AppsAudit ensures that onboot and ondemand don't have duplicate entries.
This suggests that each onboot list should have its own ondemand directory with a symlink established at boot time.
-
Since ondemand does load any app without user intervention it can be decoupled from the test for eligble onboot items. But mixing both microcore and tinycore IMHO is needlessly making things complex.