On 15-Sep-99 Werner Heuser wrote: > Sean 'Shaleh' Perry schrieb: >> >> Why framebuffer? > - usually for every new graphic card there has to be a Linux > X server developed. Framebuffer is kind of 'generic' graphic card > support, at least if the card manufacturers follow > the VESA VBE standard. > - framebuffer devices could use the hardware better, they avoid the > current video memory mapping 'concept' (I'm not a hardware wizard, > please correct me, if I'm not clear here) >
At the same time, I would like to keep the laptop kernel the same as Debian's. Just with the needed pieces. >> pentium ops are actually minimal compared to the -O2 output from egcc, plus >> the >> code is larger > Do we have kind of a benchmark, let's say for X build with options. X is not very cpu bound. There have been tests done, do not know where. The gain is a few percent (I think it is less than or near 5). > ... >> the xserver in potato works with all supported Neomagic chips, a separate >> neomagic server is no longer needed > I checked http://www.debian.org/Packages/unstable/x11/ today. > 'neomagic' isn't in the headlines. Where shall I look? > It is part of the xserver-svga -- no need for a separate server. > ... >> the hardware detection is much larger than laptops and is being looked into >> slowly > You wrote in another mail: " Several groups are working on a generic > hardware detection interface -- once finished any linux can use > these to detect hardware." > > I agree. We shouldn't make our own laptop hardware detection program. > But the projects I checked, didn't support certain laptop hardware > detection yet. For instance, I would like to have IrDA controller, > ACPI and VESA/VBE correctly detected. Of coarse the actual list > is longer. - Therefore my intension is, to have some laptop people > working together with a good hardware detection program. > Personally I prefer the Mandrake - Lothar - Project (but > this has to be researched). And an according Debian package. > Agreed.
