Am 2007-03-19 21:08:27, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/19/07 18:20, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > By the way, you can use Swiftfox. It is an optimized build of Firefox
> > with machine-specific optimizations, aggressive opti
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 16:00:16 -0300, Cassiano Leal wrote:
[...]
> Yes, it is in the video card, but it's accessed through the /dev/fb*
> 'files', in the same way that /dev/hda1 is in my HDD and yet it is accessed
> through that 'file'.
Which video card is it? (see the output of "lspci")
Wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
s. keeling wrote:
> Joe Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> framebuffer is not a device in that respect. /dev/fb* is reffering to a
>> floppy drive.
>
> You likely mean /dev/fd* is referring to floppy drives, which is just
> confusing the issue. :-)
>
>
Joe Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> framebuffer is not a device in that respect. /dev/fb* is reffering to a
> floppy drive.
You likely mean /dev/fd* is referring to floppy drives, which is just
confusing the issue. :-)
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(
Joe Hart wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23 Mar, Joe Hart wrote:
...
Well, i have no clue how udev is working. i remember in some old days
i had to do some mknod with some magic numbers, but now it really
should be handled by some udev. i have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 23 Mar, Joe Hart wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>>> Well, i have no clue how udev is working. i remember in some old days
>>> i had to do some mknod with some magic numbers, but now it really
>>> should be handled by some udev. i hav
framebuffer is not a device in that respect. /dev/fb* is reffering to a
floppy drive. What links is telling you is it can't find the
framebuffer in your video card. I don't know how to fix that issue, but
I thought I would clarify for you that it isn't the floppy that it's
looking for.
No, lin
On 23 Mar, Joe Hart wrote:
> ...
>> Well, i have no clue how udev is working. i remember in some old days
>> i had to do some mknod with some magic numbers, but now it really
>> should be handled by some udev. i have it running, even restarted it,
>> but still no signs of /dev/fb*
>
> framebuffe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Atis wrote:
>>>I knew that a long time ago, but just now tried. It says that can't
>>>find framebuffer device, and its true - i don't have /dev/fb0. Any
>>>clue what kernel module i need for that? I tried loading intelfb, but
>>>i guess just loading wo
> I'm sure you can do it without recompiling, through some 'mknod' kind of
> magic. Can't help you there, though. If you need help compiling your own
> kernel, I can give you some hints.
But nowadays, with things like udev, it its perfectly possible that the
device will be created simply by loadin
I'm sure you can do it without recompiling, through some 'mknod' kind of
magic. Can't help you there, though. If you need help compiling your own
kernel, I can give you some hints.
But nowadays, with things like udev, it its perfectly possible that the
device will be created simply by loading
Atis wrote:
On 3/20/07, Cassiano Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, I really love the fact that I can run 'links2 -g' from the
console, no need for X. And it looks beautiful on my old laptop's
framebuffer!
Cassiano
I knew that a long time ago, but just now tried. It says that can't
On 3/20/07, Cassiano Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, I really love the fact that I can run 'links2 -g' from the
console, no need for X. And it looks beautiful on my old laptop's
framebuffer!
Cassiano
I knew that a long time ago, but just now tried. It says that can't
find framebuf
Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:40:06PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been searching for browsers for a while, and I've found a few
> > > that I like:
> > >
> > > [..kazhakas
Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:01:30AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:03:33 -0600
>> "Javier Vasquez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I'm sure you'll get better and more pertinent replies, even for the
>> > opera vs fir
Celejar wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:48 -0400
Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:40:06PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
I've been searching for browsers for a while, and I've found a few
t
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:01:30AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:03:33 -0600
> "Javier Vasquez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I'm sure you'll get better and more pertinent replies, even for the
> > opera vs firefox never ending war. If you'd like to have java
> > s
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:11 -0400, Matthew K Poer wrote:
> I'm using Epiphany with Fluxbox WM right now. It works. I like it better
> than Firefox (1.0.4 Sarge) for most things, because it's faster.
Interesting. I didn't think Epiphany would work very well outside a
Gnome environment. I really
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:03:33 -0600
"Javier Vasquez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm sure you'll get better and more pertinent replies, even for the
> opera vs firefox never ending war. If you'd like to have java
> support, https, and occasionally flash, then I don't see lynx, links,
> di
On 3/19/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/19/07 18:20, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
[snip]
>
> By the way, you can use Swiftfox. It is an optimized build of Firefox
> with machine-specific optimizations, aggressive optimization
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:48 -0400
Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:40:06PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been searching for browsers for a while, and I've found a few
>
Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/19/07 18:20, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> By the way, you can use Swiftfox. It is an optimized build of Firefox
>> with machine-specific optimizations, aggressive optimization flags and
>> some f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/19/07 18:20, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
[snip]
>
> By the way, you can use Swiftfox. It is an optimized build of Firefox
> with machine-specific optimizations, aggressive optimization flags and
> some features (like Pango) disabled to i
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:40:06PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
> >
> > I've been searching for browsers for a while, and I've found a few
> > that I like:
> >
> > [..kazhakase..links2..galeon..chimera2..]
> >
> >
> Chim
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:05:07PM -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
>
> I've been searching for browsers for a while, and I've found a few
> that I like:
>
> kazehakase; Not very well featured, but it's small and quick if you
> just need a "down to the bones" browser.
>
> links2; An amazing browser
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 18:35 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> I just want to make sure I'm not mising anything when I'm choosing a web
> browser. I don't use a desktop environment as such, although I'm trying
> out xfce4 instead of icewm.
>
> I want an Xwindow based web browser that lets me acc
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:35:32PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> I just want to make sure I'm not mising anything when I'm choosing a web
> browser. I don't use a desktop environment as such, although I'm trying
> out xfce4 instead of icewm.
>
> I want an Xwindow based web browser that lets
So right now I use iceape. Its big and clunky I suppose, but mostly I
don't like all the security bugs that keep being found in the
gekko-based browsers (per the debian BTS).
Well, I was trying to find a lightweight browser too. Dillo is beautifully
fast, but
1-) Lack some features as you ment
On 3/19/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
Is there another well-featured web-browser that is _not_ integrated into
a desktop environment?
Thanks,
Doug.
Dillo is frozen right now (http://www.dillo.org), so I don't know if
it'll accomplish its goals any time soon, and if
29 matches
Mail list logo
