Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Jeremy Abbott]

This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for quite 
some time now. 

Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox, 
thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather than 
starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the bloat 
of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure fvwm or 
fluxbox, etc.  In addition, the X server has a lot to it that I don't 
really need.  This is just a personal desktop, and aside from setting up 
samba to share mp3's with my fiance's computer (across the room), I 
don't do provide any servers.  I also generally don't use any graphical 
utilities for setting up or maintaing the system.  The only progs I 
really use in X are, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS, Openoffice, and 
occasionally KDevelop... mostly for editing my fvwm config.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Jeremy Abbott
jkbullfrog@comcast.net

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Eric Bambach]

Hi,
 I would say no. The X server isnt all too bloated if you use a lightweight 
window manager . Firefox, Openoffice, Xmms all use toolkits that need a 
backend X server to talk to. What gives you the impressions that X is that 
bloated? I would say just bite the bullet and search out a simple window 
manager. Sorry if anything doesn't make sense Im quite tired today, but I 
hope that answers your question.

On Tuesday 11 January 2005 02:41 pm, you wrote:
> This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for quite
> some time now.
>
> Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox,
> thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather than
> starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the bloat
> of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure fvwm or
> fluxbox, etc.  In addition, the X server has a lot to it that I don't
> really need.  This is just a personal desktop, and aside from setting up
> samba to share mp3's with my fiance's computer (across the room), I
> don't do provide any servers.  I also generally don't use any graphical
> utilities for setting up or maintaing the system.  The only progs I
> really use in X are, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS, Openoffice, and
> occasionally KDevelop... mostly for editing my fvwm config.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Jeremy Abbott
> jkbullfrog@comcast.net
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

-- 
----------------------------------------
--EB

> All is fine except that I can reliably "oops" it simply by trying to read
> from /proc/apm (e.g. cat /proc/apm).
> oops output and ksymoops-2.3.4 output is attached.
> Is there anything else I can contribute?

The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and
a ballistic missile.

                --Alan Cox LKML-December 08,2000 

----------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Jeremy Abbott]

What about a possible shell equivalent of XMMS, or at least an mp3 
player with a que, I already know I can run elm as opposed to 
Thunderbird?  Also, is there a better (i.e. graphical) web-broweser that 
runs from the command line?  The only browsers I know of are links and lynx.

Eric Bambach wrote:

>Hi,
> I would say no. The X server isnt all too bloated if you use a lightweight 
>window manager . Firefox, Openoffice, Xmms all use toolkits that need a 
>backend X server to talk to. What gives you the impressions that X is that 
>bloated? I would say just bite the bullet and search out a simple window 
>manager. Sorry if anything doesn't make sense Im quite tired today, but I 
>hope that answers your question.
>
>On Tuesday 11 January 2005 02:41 pm, you wrote:
>  
>
>>This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for quite
>>some time now.
>>
>>Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox,
>>thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather than
>>starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the bloat
>>of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure fvwm or
>>fluxbox, etc.  In addition, the X server has a lot to it that I don't
>>really need.  This is just a personal desktop, and aside from setting up
>>samba to share mp3's with my fiance's computer (across the room), I
>>don't do provide any servers.  I also generally don't use any graphical
>>utilities for setting up or maintaing the system.  The only progs I
>>really use in X are, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS, Openoffice, and
>>occasionally KDevelop... mostly for editing my fvwm config.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any help.
>>
>>Jeremy Abbott
>>jkbullfrog@comcast.net
>>-
>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Eric Bambach]

On Tuesday 11 January 2005 03:28 pm, you wrote:
> What about a possible shell equivalent of XMMS, or at least an mp3
> player with a que, I already know I can run elm as opposed to
> Thunderbird?  Also, is there a better (i.e. graphical) web-broweser that
> runs from the command line?  The only browsers I know of are links and
> lynx.

I think I misunderstood your request. You want to find ALTERNATIVES to those 
programs that will run from the command line instead of running THOSE 
programs from the command line right?

Good thoughts. There are command line MP3 players, how effective they are Im 
not sure. Some clever scripting will get you a playlist with command line 
programs. You seem to be work adverse though (not installing fvwm etc.) As 
far as webrowsers... all I know of is lynx. Be aware what you are trying to 
do is a niche inside of a niche and your choice of programs may be small to 
accomplish what you want to do. Furthermore you may sacrifice alot of 
features that are only available to GUI-based programs such as playlist 
queues. I said may because I really am not sure. Just something to think 
about.

Emacs will let you do what you do in KDevelop(programming, syntax 
highlighting) . Im sure you know about vi and vim too. Personally I prefer 
joe for stright text editing though.

Sorry for misunderstanding your request but now that I have it clear, I 
haven't the foggiest clue of where to point you in terms of programs. As 
always check google, www.sourceforge.net and www.freshmeat.net :)

Good luck to you though. I certainly wouldn't do it, nor would I advise it, 
but Im glad Linux gives you the freedom to! :)

> Eric Bambach wrote:
> >Hi,
> > I would say no. The X server isnt all too bloated if you use a
> > lightweight window manager . Firefox, Openoffice, Xmms all use toolkits
> > that need a backend X server to talk to. What gives you the impressions
> > that X is that bloated? I would say just bite the bullet and search out a
> > simple window manager. Sorry if anything doesn't make sense Im quite
> > tired today, but I hope that answers your question.
> >
> >On Tuesday 11 January 2005 02:41 pm, you wrote:
> >>This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for quite
> >>some time now.
> >>
> >>Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox,
> >>thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather than
> >>starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the bloat
> >>of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure fvwm or
> >>fluxbox, etc.  In addition, the X server has a lot to it that I don't
> >>really need.  This is just a personal desktop, and aside from setting up
> >>samba to share mp3's with my fiance's computer (across the room), I
> >>don't do provide any servers.  I also generally don't use any graphical
> >>utilities for setting up or maintaing the system.  The only progs I
> >>really use in X are, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS, Openoffice, and
> >>occasionally KDevelop... mostly for editing my fvwm config.
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance for any help.
> >>
> >>Jeremy Abbott
> >>jkbullfrog@comcast.net
> >>-
> >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie"
> >> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

-- 
----------------------------------------
--EB

> All is fine except that I can reliably "oops" it simply by trying to read
> from /proc/apm (e.g. cat /proc/apm).
> oops output and ksymoops-2.3.4 output is attached.
> Is there anything else I can contribute?

The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and
a ballistic missile.

                --Alan Cox LKML-December 08,2000 

----------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Ray Olszewski]

At 09:28 PM 1/11/2005 +0000, Jeremy Abbott wrote:

>What about a possible shell equivalent of XMMS, or at least an mp3 player 
>with a que,

mpg123, a command-line mp3 player, can be run given a list of files to 
play. That's the closest I can think of to a playlist (what I assume you 
mean by a "que") capability in a CLI player. I didn't check, but the 
similar program mpg321 probably has the same capability.

>  I already know I can run elm as opposed to Thunderbird?

Yeah, or mutt or mush. I imagine pine is still around too. e-mail is easy 
for a CLI to handle.

>Also, is there a better (i.e. graphical) web-broweser that runs from the 
>command line?  The only browsers I know of are links and lynx.

The two you name are the only ncurses-based browsers I am aware of. What 
you want, though, is (probably) a browser that uses svgalib.

I'm seeing some references that indicate that links2 (a grapgical version 
of links) can run using svgalib, but the Debian binary seems to be compiled 
to use X libraries, so you may need to compile your own version. Take a 
look at the links upstream site -- 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/links/index.html -- for 
the details.

There once was a version of arachne that I believe used svgalib, but I 
can't find any indication that it is currently available.

A little googling turned up lists of lightweight browsers at these URLs --

         http://users.netwit.net.au/~pursang/brows.html
         http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm/en/lin_browser.html

-- though the svgalib choices they list all appear either to be gone or to 
be very early-stage alpha code.

The suggestion that you use X with a lightweight WM, which others have 
already made, really is good advice, probably much less work than diving 
down any of these rabbit holes. My own favorite in this respect is 
blackbox, though I think there are several others, such as your own example 
of fluxbox, that are also pretty good. With blackbox, I've run X on systems 
that have only 32 MB of RAM, with room to spare ... though some of the apps 
you are interested in themselves are too heavyweight for that.

Gentoo's source-based approach may make adding packages more trouble than, 
say, Debian or Fedora or Knoppix users have, but surely you're used to that 
aspect of Gentoo by now.

And the basic response you already received is also right ... apps familiar 
to us as X-based use shared libraries specific to X. They cannot write to a 
"raw" framebuffer.

>Eric Bambach wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>I would say no. The X server isnt all too bloated if you use a 
>>lightweight window manager . Firefox, Openoffice, Xmms all use toolkits 
>>that need a backend X server to talk to. What gives you the impressions 
>>that X is that bloated? I would say just bite the bullet and search out a 
>>simple window manager. Sorry if anything doesn't make sense Im quite 
>>tired today, but I hope that answers your question.
>>
>>On Tuesday 11 January 2005 02:41 pm, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for quite
>>>some time now.
>>>
>>>Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox,
>>>thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather than
>>>starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the bloat
>>>of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure fvwm or
>>>fluxbox, etc.  In addition, the X server has a lot to it that I don't
>>>really need.  This is just a personal desktop, and aside from setting up
>>>samba to share mp3's with my fiance's computer (across the room), I
>>>don't do provide any servers.  I also generally don't use any graphical
>>>utilities for setting up or maintaing the system.  The only progs I
>>>really use in X are, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS, Openoffice, and
>>>occasionally KDevelop... mostly for editing my fvwm config.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for any help.
>>>
>>>Jeremy Abbott
>>>jkbullfrog@comcast.net






-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Jeremy Abbott]

>
> mpg123, a command-line mp3 player, can be run given a list of files to 
> play. That's the closest I can think of to a playlist (what I assume 
> you mean by a "que") capability in a CLI player. I didn't check, but 
> the similar program mpg321 probably has the same capability.
>
>
Thanks, I will check into this.

> Yeah, or mutt or mush. I imagine pine is still around too. e-mail is 
> easy for a CLI to handle.
>
I'm also just now checking into mutt, which is a prog I had forgotten 
about.  I used pine years ago when I was in high school.

> I'm seeing some references that indicate that links2 (a grapgical 
> version of links) can run using svgalib, but the Debian binary seems 
> to be compiled to use X libraries, so you may need to compile your own 
> version. Take a look at the links upstream site -- 
> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/links/index.html -- 
> for the details.
>
The links I was refering to is links2, but I will look into using svgalib.

> The suggestion that you use X with a lightweight WM, which others have 
> already made, really is good advice, probably much less work than 
> diving down any of these rabbit holes. My own favorite in this respect 
> is blackbox, though I think there are several others, such as your own 
> example of fluxbox, that are also pretty good. With blackbox, I've run 
> X on systems that have only 32 MB of RAM, with room to spare ... 
> though some of the apps you are interested in themselves are too 
> heavyweight for that.
>
I do have to ask you why using X is good advice (not to say your wrong), 
my understanding, is that X is cobbled together adding code ontop of 
code, to the point where it is barely readable.  Aside from the bloat 
(of which I was primarily writing of kde and gnome), I also have some 
minor display problems with X.  I have tried my monitor manufacturers 
range of vertical and horizonatal syncs, but notice a flicker.  I have 
also tried tried the exact values my monitor tells me I have when I am 
in Windowz XP (which is still on the system as backup, even though I 
have abandoned it), and it doesn't flicker, but I see some kindof funky 
lines, almost like my display is being slightly folded in on the top and 
bottom.  This could also have to do with the generic radeon driver I'm 
running.  I suppose I shall try installing the Ati drivers for X.

> Gentoo's source-based approach may make adding packages more trouble 
> than, say, Debian or Fedora or Knoppix users have, but surely you're 
> used to that aspect of Gentoo by now.
>
I personally have never had problems adding packages to Gentoo, aside 
from the long compilation process, but this is always the case when 
compiling sourcecode.  I tried Debian once, but it would not recognize 
my usb keyboard and mouse to install.  I have never run Fedora, though I 
did run Red Hat (I think 7.2) for a day, and quickly switched to 
Mandrake which I found much better.  I have also not tried Knoppix, but 
thought it only to be like a LiveCD distro for recovery and the like.  
What I like about Gentoo are the USE variabls I can choose before 
compiling, without having to alter make files for each package.  I have 
heard that there is a similar deal to Gentoo's portage in Slackware, but 
I have not tried it either.

> And the basic response you already received is also right ... apps 
> familiar to us as X-based use shared libraries specific to X. They 
> cannot write to a "raw" framebuffer.
>
To this I have to ask why?  I know for a fact that I am not the only 
person who has expressed this concern.  Where is the next generation X 
server?  Don't tell me Xorg, cause that is what I'm running, and it aint 
that different (not to sound to condescending).

I do however thank you for the help.  I will be continuing to research this.

Jeremy Abbott
jkbullfrog@comcast.net

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Ray Olszewski]

At 11:57 PM 1/11/2005 +0000, Jeremy Abbott wrote:
[...]
>I do have to ask you why using X is good advice (not to say your wrong), 
>my understanding, is that X is cobbled together adding code ontop of code, 
>to the point where it is barely readable.

Well ... your concern about not having enough time to configure fluxbox 
suggests you are not eager to take on a lot of configuration work, and X 
provides a standard that lets you (and the people who write software) avoid 
a lot of customizing. X itself could no doubt be better ... what software 
couldn't? ... but used in a lightweight configuration, it's not really that 
bad.

>Aside from the bloat (of which I was primarily writing of kde and gnome),

This is quite irrelevent to the discussion, since we've all been suggesting 
ways to avoid use of KDE and Gnome (though not necessarily the underlying 
gtk and qt libraries, since it's the apps you choose that dictate whether 
they are needed).

>I also have some minor display problems with X.  I have tried my monitor 
>manufacturers range of vertical and horizonatal syncs, but notice a 
>flicker.  I have also tried tried the exact values my monitor tells me I 
>have when I am in Windowz XP (which is still on the system as backup, even 
>though I have abandoned it), and it doesn't flicker, but I see some kindof 
>funky lines, almost like my display is being slightly folded in on the top 
>and bottom.  This could also have to do with the generic radeon driver I'm 
>running.  I suppose I shall try installing the Ati drivers for X.

Maybe. If you want help on this, you're going to need to discuss the 
details. This is your first mention of display problems, so naturally my, 
and others', prior reponses didn't consider it as an issue.

>[...]
>>And the basic response you already received is also right ... apps 
>>familiar to us as X-based use shared libraries specific to X. They cannot 
>>write to a "raw" framebuffer.
>To this I have to ask why?  I know for a fact that I am not the only 
>person who has expressed this concern.  Where is the next generation X 
>server?  Don't tell me Xorg, cause that is what I'm running, and it aint 
>that different (not to sound to condescending).

I don't understand your question. X apps cannot write to a raw framebuffer 
because they use shared libraries that assume the presence of an X server. 
Is there something about that design decision that you do not understand? 
If so, what? (I understand that you do not *like* the limitation.)

And I don't know what you mean by "next generation X server". Generally 
speaking, software for mainstream workstations is relatively heavyweight, 
simply because they have the power to cope with heavyweight. Any "next 
generation" X server we see from the traditional X sources will most likely 
be distinguished by added features, not by more compact size. Why? Because 
that's what interests that subset of developers, and Open Source projects 
tend to be motivated more by developer interest that consumer demand. And 
if you don't run KDE or Gnome, no current version of X is all *that* 
heavyweight anyway.

If you are looking for something *extremely* lightweight, you probably want 
to look at alternatives to X written for the embedded-systems world (PDAs 
and the like)... projects like microwindows and matchbox. These 
super-lightweight apps tend not to show up in mainstream distros, though, 
and since they use different shared libraries, they do not support 
mainstream X apps, only apps that have been written or adapted for them.




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[James Miller]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Ray Olszewski wrote:

> If you are looking for something *extremely* lightweight, you probably want
> to look at alternatives to X written for the embedded-systems world (PDAs
> and the like)... projects like microwindows and matchbox. These
> super-lightweight apps tend not to show up in mainstream distros, though,
> and since they use different shared libraries, they do not support
> mainstream X apps, only apps that have been written or adapted for them.

Since no one has yet mentioned Xvesa/Kdrive I will. It's some kind of
really stripped down version of X that's often used to get a
reasonably-performing display on older machines that might otherwise be
very sluggish running the full X windows. DamnSmallLinux uses Xvesa for
its display, for example, and Knoppix gives the option of using it as the
Xserver. Delilinux and Basiclinux offer or use it as well.

James, soundless in Milwaukee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Michael Scottaline]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:19:42 -0600
Eric Bambach <eric@cisu.net> insightfully noted:

EB>Hi,
EB> I would say no. The X server isnt all too bloated if you use a
EB> lightweight 
EB>window manager . Firefox, Openoffice, Xmms all use toolkits that need a
EB>
EB>backend X server to talk to. What gives you the impressions that X is
EB>that bloated? I would say just bite the bullet and search out a simple
EB>window manager. Sorry if anything doesn't make sense Im quite tired
EB>today, but I hope that answers your question.
===================================
Jeremy might consider running ion or ratpoison which basically work like a
command line with some keybindings that are very easily configured.
Mike

-- 
"The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 
years of his life"
--Muhammad Ali
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Ulrich Fürst]

Jeremy Abbott <jkbullfrog@comcast.net> wrote: 
> This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for
> quite some time now. 
> 
> Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox, 
> thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather
> than starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the
> bloat of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure

You can start your programs from the console with X and without
KDE/Gnome by typing:
$ xinit /usr/bin/firefox -- :0
or
$ xinit /usr/bin/oowriter -- :1

But I don't know exactly what you have to install (of X I mean). I'd
think if you have fvwm installed to get used to it, there should be
everything you need. 

hth

Ulrich
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Jeremy Abbott]

Ulrich Fürst wrote:

>Jeremy Abbott <jkbullfrog@comcast.net> wrote: 
>  
>
>>This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for
>>quite some time now. 
>>
>>Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox, 
>>thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather
>>than starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the
>>bloat of Gnome and KDE, and don't have the time to learn to configure
>>    
>>
>
>You can start your programs from the console with X and without
>KDE/Gnome by typing:
>$ xinit /usr/bin/firefox -- :0
>or
>$ xinit /usr/bin/oowriter -- :1
>
>But I don't know exactly what you have to install (of X I mean). I'd
>think if you have fvwm installed to get used to it, there should be
>everything you need. 
>
>hth
>
>Ulrich
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
>
>  
>
I will try this, but am curious what the purpose of the -- :0 and the -- 
:1 are.  Is this in the man pages for X?  Could this possibly be for 
running more than one prog at a time, to switch between for the 
console?  If so how?  Or should I also read the man page for this?

Thanks,
Jeremy Abbott
jkbullfrog@comcast.net

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Ulrich Fürst]

Jeremy Abbott <jkbullfrog@comcast.net> wrote: 
> I will try this, but am curious what the purpose of the -- :0 and the
> -- :1 are.  Is this in the man pages for X?  Could this possibly be

the "--" stands for "end of the options and the :0 or :1 is the
(virtual) display to start on. 

> for running more than one prog at a time, to switch between for the 
Exactly. You can switch to :0 with "CTRL-ALT-F7" to :1 with
"CTRL-ALT-F8" and so on.
So you can have e.g. firebird on :0 oowriter on :1 and something other
on :2

> console?  If so how?  Or should I also read the man page for this?
It's never a bad idea to look for the options someone is suggesting
in the manual page. Maybe it fits your purposes better, using something
a bit different :-)

Ulrich
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Peter]

There is athene desktop which does not use X. It's very fast.
http://www.rocklyte.com/athene

To configure blackbox in ~/.blackbox/menu is a child play and takes just 
minutes and can be done a little at a time.

If I have a need for gnome or kde which do have some excellent programs which 
I forget where they are I just type kicker for kde or gnome-panel for gnome 
and I have their toolbars handy. When done one can even minimize them so they 
are out of the way.

Regards
-- 
Peter

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Ray Olszewski]

At 10:04 AM 1/13/2005 +0800, Peter wrote:

>There is athene desktop which does not use X. It's very fast.
>http://www.rocklyte.com/athene
>
>To configure blackbox in ~/.blackbox/menu is a child play and takes just
>minutes and can be done a little at a time.


Thanks, Peter. We seem to be turning up a lot of interesting ideas in this 
thread.

As I said in an earlier comment, I thought the place to look for help is 
not in large distros but in stuff targeted to embedded systems. I spent a 
bit of time looking around there this afternoon and turned up this site -- 
http://www.directfb.org/ -- that provides a small library that permits 
direct access to the framebuffer. I didn't look at all the details, but 
maybe Jeremy will want to investigate if it fits his needs.

Descriptions of and pointers to variety of projects, some possibly relevant 
to Jeremy's needs, can be found at 
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9202043619.html







-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Michael Scottaline]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:04:51 +0800
Peter <heisspf@skyinet.net> insightfully noted:

P>There is athene desktop which does not use X. It's very fast.
P>http://www.rocklyte.com/athene
P>
P>To configure blackbox in ~/.blackbox/menu is a child play and takes just
P>
P>minutes and can be done a little at a time.
P>
P>If I have a need for gnome or kde which do have some excellent programs
P>which I forget where they are I just type kicker for kde or gnome-panel
P>for gnome and I have their toolbars handy. When done one can even
P>minimize them so they are out of the way.
====================================
Or even just kill the process...
You are quite right about BB and it's sister fluxbox.  Both exceptionally
lightweight gui X wms, very configurable and relatively easy to use.
For even more light weight wm, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread,
ratpoison, ion, UDE, and wmi are all so free of "frill" that one almost
feels as if one is operating in a terminal mode.  But when you need an app
that requires X.....,  [i]voila[/i]
Best,
Michael

-- 
"The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 
years of his life"
--Muhammad Ali
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Running X programs from bash w/ framebuffer

[Marcus Furlong]

Jeremy Abbott wrote:

> This may seem really newbieish, but I have been running Gentoo for quite
> some time now.
> 
> Is it possible to forego X altogether, and run things like firefox,
> thunderbird, etc through the framebuffer from a bashprompt, rather than
> starting X and going from there.  The reason I ask, is I hate the bloat

http://quingy.sf.net

qingy is a replacement of getty. Written in C, it uses DirectFB to provide a
fast, nice GUI without the overhead of the X Windows System. It allows the
user to log in and start the session of his choice (text console, gnome,
kde, wmaker, ...).

emerge -a quingy
emerge --newuse world

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs