![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#31
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,808 Joined: 13-September 04 From: Wasilla Ak. Member No.: 4,572 ![]() |
QUOTE(ZDevil @ Aug 26 2007, 02:58 PM) adf, I think you can find some of the answers here: https://www.oesf.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=17871 One thing may be different now: the system and the packages are now generally built with optimization settings. Rereading Andy's text makes me think of the progress of work on bluetooth and SD support: Is GPL the main reason not to implement Bluez and the SD solution in other "roms"? But I see lardman's reply in the same thread. If he's right, then why not? Or if the implementation is problematic, then how? ![]() Thanks-that answered most of my questions. given that I rely on SD and Bluetooth it would be better if Ididn't consider openbsd as my main os on the Z--though popping it on a cf for fun might be in the future. Given at least the potential for working-but-unofficial binary hardwre drivers this situation may not be permanent |
|
|
![]()
Post
#32
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 301 Joined: 8-July 06 From: United Kingdom for now.... Member No.: 10,349 ![]() |
QUOTE(ZDevil @ Aug 27 2007, 01:02 AM) Just out of curiosity: the latest snapshots feel snappier than 4.1. Is the whole systems built with optimization or is it just my illusion? ![]() I think the GENERIC kernel and base system are built with CPUFLAGS="-mcpu=xscale" only. I've added the following to my Kernel: makeoptions CPUFLAGS="-mtune=xscale -mcpu=xscale -O2 -pipe" However; if you've setup the CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS optimization flags in /etc/mk.conf, then your entire system will be built with "-mtune=xscale -mcpu=xscale -O2 -pipe" when you build from source. ![]() |
|
|
![]()
Post
#33
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,998 Joined: 16-April 04 From: the Netherlands && /dev/null Member No.: 2,882 ![]() |
Ok, here is another issue about xrandr.
I tried xrandr -q to find out the correct size and got CODE Xlib: extension "RANDR" missing on display ":0.0" And then I tried xrandr with some flags, e.g. -o -s etc, and got CODE Can't open display 0 Is there something we have to set in /etc/X11/xorg.conf? Or something else? Thanks! |
|
|
![]()
Post
#34
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 301 Joined: 8-July 06 From: United Kingdom for now.... Member No.: 10,349 ![]() |
QUOTE(ZDevil @ Aug 29 2007, 11:48 AM) I tried xrandr -q to find out the correct size and got CODE Xlib: extension "RANDR" missing on display ":0.0" And then I tried xrandr with some flags, e.g. -o -s etc, and got CODE Can't open display 0 Is there something we have to set in /etc/X11/xorg.conf? Or something else? If you look in /var/log/Xorg.0.log you'll see this: QUOTE (II) wsfb(0): Enabling Driver Rotation, disabling RandR (==) wsfb(0): Backing store disabled (--) RandR disabled So the wsfb driver disables it by default. Currently, the rotation of the screen can be changed by editing the "InputDevice" section of the Xorg.conf: QUOTE Option "Rotate" "string" Enable rotation of the display. The supported val ues are "CW" (clockwise, 90 degrees), "UD" (upside down, 180 degrees) and "CCW" (counter clockwise, 270 degrees). Implies use of the shadow framebuffer layer. However, it's not on the fly rotation. ![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2018 - 08:54 AM |