On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 07:34:28PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 03:03:28PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > > * note: I don't know that X is involved in painting the screen graphics on > > boot up from the Debian install CDs. When I think about it, X seems like > > an awfully heavy weight way to paint a picture. Suffice to say I don't want > > and have never selected graphical install. > > Have you heard of the framebuffer? No X involved.
The Framebuffer and X are not mutually exclusive. The framebuffer is, basically, a non-accelerated graphics device. Most PCs these days have two options for displaying graphics: calculate the entire image on the CPU/main RAM and then send a series of pixels to the framebuffer - the framebuffer will then hold these pixels until the next monitor sync comes along. Alternatively, you can send a series of commands to a graphics processor and have that calculate the final image. This, of course, frees up the CPU, hence the acceleration. X, on the other hand, is a networked display server. It is mostly an abstraction layer. Application programmers can develop their programs without having to worry about whether the target device is a framebuffer, a GPU or even a different computer somewhere else on the network. It is perfectly possible to run X on a framebuffer - for computers that only have a framebuffer this is the ONLY way to run an X server. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120620091923.ga10...@darac.org.uk
