[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:10:25 +0200
From: John Spencer <maillist-musl@...fooze.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Hello
On 06/07/2012 08:03 PM, Jens Staal wrote:
> 2012/6/7 John Spencer<maillist-musl@...fooze.de>:
>> On 06/07/2012 05:18 PM, orc wrote:
>> what kept me from configuring X11 to work properly is its huge freaking
>> complexity.
>> if an older version is simpler and can do the job as well, i'm all for it.
>> i fear though that you won't get any up-to-date software compiled against
>> it.
>> probably not worth the effort.
>>
>> --JS
> What about Tiny Core Linux's "tinyX", and perhaps one could even
> compile that statically? I have no idea how compatible that is to
> Xorg's X11 though... Another appealing alternative could be if there
> is a small X11 layer to run on top of Wayland, if that would be easier
> to build/configure.
>
that's what sabotage currently uses
http://www.x-oz.com/Xfbdev.1.html
"Xfbdev - Linux framebuffer device tiny X server"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
