OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86? - BSD

This is a discussion on OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86? - BSD ; Hi, All finally seemed to go well after installation. Then I tried to reconfigure X (high resolution, wheel). Now X is gone and no matter if I try xorgcfg or XF86Setup, it won't work. Since only xorgcfg does work, I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

  1. OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    Hi,

    All finally seemed to go well after installation. Then I tried to
    reconfigure X (high resolution, wheel). Now X is gone and no matter if I
    try xorgcfg or XF86Setup, it won't work. Since only xorgcfg does work, I
    assume Xorg is default. Is this correct? (startx ends with errors on no
    screens found).

    Thanks,

    Huub

  2. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:33 +0100, Huub <"v.niekerk at freeler.nl">
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >All finally seemed to go well after installation. Then I tried to
    >reconfigure X (high resolution, wheel). Now X is gone and no matter if I
    >try xorgcfg or XF86Setup, it won't work. Since only xorgcfg does work, I
    >assume Xorg is default. Is this correct? (startx ends with errors on no
    >screens found).


    X -configure

    that's what worked for me.

    janm

  3. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    Jan Mannoury wrote:

    > X -configure
    >
    > that's what worked for me.
    >
    > janm


    When I do this, I get an option list, on top of which is the option
    "-xf86config file".

  4. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:39:39 +0100, Huub <"v.niekerk at freeler.nl">
    wrote:

    >Jan Mannoury wrote:
    >
    >> X -configure
    >>
    >> that's what worked for me.
    >>
    >> janm

    >
    >When I do this, I get an option list, on top of which is the option
    >"-xf86config file".


    hm. it generated a config file for me that worked. i'll look into it
    tomorrow. i'm not at work now.

    janm

  5. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    >
    > hm. it generated a config file for me that worked. i'll look into it
    > tomorrow. i'm not at work now.
    >
    > janm


    On 2nd try it turned out to indeed have generated it. But now another
    odd thing happens. "Xorg -config xorg.conf.new" does work. When I adjust
    it adding HorizSync, VertRefresh, and Modes "1024x768", it still does.
    When I copy xorg.conf.new to /etc/X11/xorg.conf, "Xorg -config
    xorg.conf" does work. But when I do "startx", it fails claiming "NVidia
    unknown chipset", "failed to open /dev/mem (Permission denied)" and
    "Fatal server error: no screens found". I don't get this. I've tried
    several options, including some that froze up the video and forced me to
    remotely reboot the machine. At this point I feel like reinstalling OBSD.

  6. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    "Huub" <"v.niekerk at freeler.nl"> wrote:
    > >
    > > hm. it generated a config file for me that worked. i'll look into it
    > > tomorrow. i'm not at work now.

    [snip]
    > xorg.conf" does work. But when I do "startx", it fails claiming "NVidia
    > unknown chipset", "failed to open /dev/mem (Permission denied)" and
    > "Fatal server error: no screens found". I don't get this. I've tried
    > several options, including some that froze up the video and forced me to
    > remotely reboot the machine. At this point I feel like reinstalling

    OBSD.

    You probably ran one of the old XF3 config things which messed up the
    symlink.

    Try:

    cd /usr/X11R6/bin && ln -sf Xorg X

    -- Nicholas.



  7. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    >
    > You probably ran one of the old XF3 config things which messed up the
    > symlink.
    >
    > Try:
    >
    > cd /usr/X11R6/bin && ln -sf Xorg X
    >
    > -- Nicholas.
    >
    >


    Looks like the solution. Now for the right resolution and screen
    dimension (1024x768 looks too small and long).

  8. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    >
    > Looks like the solution. Now for the right resolution and screen
    > dimension (1024x768 looks too small and long).


    Done that too. Thanks for the suggestions.

  9. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:13:33 -0800, Huub <"v.niekerk at freeler.nl"> wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > All finally seemed to go well after installation. Then I tried to
    > reconfigure X (high resolution, wheel). Now X is gone


    Thank God. You're not supposed to use X on OpenBSD. It is *NOT* a desktop
    OS. If you want a desktop OS, use Windows 95 and stop posting in this
    newsgroup. Our community doesn't want people who seek an alternative to
    the command line.

    --
    Theo de Raadt.
    http://www.openbsd.org/

  10. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    >
    >
    > Thank God. You're not supposed to use X on OpenBSD. It is *NOT* a
    > desktop OS. If you want a desktop OS, use Windows 95 and stop posting
    > in this newsgroup. Our community doesn't want people who seek an
    > alternative to the command line.
    >


    The FAQ tells me I *can* use it as a desktop OS. My intention though is
    using it as server.

  11. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    huub wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Thank God. You're not supposed to use X on OpenBSD. It is *NOT* a
    >> desktop OS. If you want a desktop OS, use Windows 95 and stop posting
    >> in this newsgroup. Our community doesn't want people who seek an
    >> alternative to the command line.
    >>

    >
    > The FAQ tells me I *can* use it as a desktop OS. My intention though is
    > using it as server.


    Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    merits. ;-)

    Joachim

  12. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    >
    >
    > Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    > merits. ;-)
    >
    > Joachim


    Same: how do I know?

  13. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    huub wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    >> merits. ;-)
    >>
    >> Joachim

    >
    > Same: how do I know?


    Same response, see above...

    As to the command line - just fsck up X badly enough that it will not
    run for a couple of months, and you'll never want to go back for most
    common tasks (of course, editing an image on the command line, while not
    impossible, is not the most efficient way of getting the job done; and
    a rare few websites are not usable in w3m/lynx/(e)links/whatever your
    text browser of choice is).

    Joachim

  14. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:27:58 +0100, huub wrote:

    >> Thank God. You're not supposed to use X on OpenBSD. It is *NOT* a
    >> desktop OS. If you want a desktop OS, use Windows 95 and stop posting
    >> in this newsgroup. Our community doesn't want people who seek an
    >> alternative to the command line.
    >>

    > The FAQ tells me I *can* use it as a desktop OS. My intention though is
    > using it as server.


    Apparently, YHBT, and (equally apparently) YHL.
    --
    mark south: world citizen, net denizen
    echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m


  15. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:35:51 +0000, jKILLSPAM.schipper wrote:

    > huub wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    >>> merits. ;-)
    >>>

    >> Same: how do I know?

    >
    > Same response, see above...
    >
    > As to the command line - just fsck up X badly enough that it will not
    > run for a couple of months, and you'll never want to go back for most
    > common tasks (of course, editing an image on the command line, while not
    > impossible, is not the most efficient way of getting the job done; and
    > a rare few websites are not usable in w3m/lynx/(e)links/whatever your
    > text browser of choice is).


    The best reason for having X is to be able to have lots of xterms open at
    once. Even if you prefer console-based newsreaders, mail clients,
    editors, etc, it's nice to be able to see them all at once.

    --
    mark south: world citizen, net denizen
    echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m


  16. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On 05/12/2005 11:02 AM, Mark South wrote:
    > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:35:51 +0000, jKILLSPAM.schipper wrote:
    >
    >> huub wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    >>>> merits. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>> Same: how do I know?

    >> Same response, see above...
    >>
    >> As to the command line - just fsck up X badly enough that it will not
    >> run for a couple of months, and you'll never want to go back for most
    >> common tasks (of course, editing an image on the command line, while not
    >> impossible, is not the most efficient way of getting the job done; and
    >> a rare few websites are not usable in w3m/lynx/(e)links/whatever your
    >> text browser of choice is).

    >
    > The best reason for having X is to be able to have lots of xterms open at
    > once. Even if you prefer console-based newsreaders, mail clients,
    > editors, etc, it's nice to be able to see them all at once.
    >

    This is why the gods created emacs and virtual terminals, among others.

    There is nothing wrong with having a nice GUI workstation, of course. I
    just find that X is such a kludge that it actually makes me wish for a
    text-only interface in a short time. GUIs and GUI apps that are not
    consistent and unified in their behaviour actually steal productivity
    from me. And the setup and tweaking is a /bitch/!

    I suspect this is where the "X sucks, especially on OBSD" attitude comes
    from. It's the main reason that I have never installed the X package
    since OBSD 2.7 or something.

    Then again, I only run OBSD as an edge box, which seems like the right
    application of the OS to me.

  17. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:11:15 -0500, void * clvrmnky() wrote:

    > On 05/12/2005 11:02 AM, Mark South wrote:
    >> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:35:51 +0000, jKILLSPAM.schipper wrote:
    >>
    >>> huub wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    >>>>> merits. ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>> Same: how do I know?
    >>> Same response, see above...
    >>>
    >>> As to the command line - just fsck up X badly enough that it will not
    >>> run for a couple of months, and you'll never want to go back for most
    >>> common tasks (of course, editing an image on the command line, while not
    >>> impossible, is not the most efficient way of getting the job done; and
    >>> a rare few websites are not usable in w3m/lynx/(e)links/whatever your
    >>> text browser of choice is).

    >>
    >> The best reason for having X is to be able to have lots of xterms open at
    >> once. Even if you prefer console-based newsreaders, mail clients,
    >> editors, etc, it's nice to be able to see them all at once.
    >>

    > This is why the gods created emacs and virtual terminals, among others.


    Yeah, well, I do honestly think that human productivity for most
    text things maxed out with VT220s connected to VAXes running SysV.

    I think I said in one of the BSD groups once that productivity is
    inversely proportional to the size of the window manager or something.

    > There is nothing wrong with having a nice GUI workstation, of course. I
    > just find that X is such a kludge that it actually makes me wish for a
    > text-only interface in a short time. GUIs and GUI apps that are not
    > consistent and unified in their behaviour actually steal productivity
    > from me. And the setup and tweaking is a /bitch/!


    If you want "unified behaviour", you may need to be using Gnome or KDE.

    (Thinks: am I evil, or what? ;-)

    > I suspect this is where the "X sucks, especially on OBSD" attitude comes
    > from. It's the main reason that I have never installed the X package
    > since OBSD 2.7 or something.


    X migth be a *little* easier to configure nowadays....

    > Then again, I only run OBSD as an edge box, which seems like the right
    > application of the OS to me.


    :-)
    --
    mark south: world citizen, net denizen
    echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m


  18. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    Mark South wrote:
    > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:27:58 +0100, huub wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Thank God. You're not supposed to use X on OpenBSD. It is *NOT* a
    >>>desktop OS. If you want a desktop OS, use Windows 95 and stop posting
    >>>in this newsgroup. Our community doesn't want people who seek an
    >>>alternative to the command line.
    >>>

    >>
    >>The FAQ tells me I *can* use it as a desktop OS. My intention though is
    >>using it as server.

    >
    >
    > Apparently, YHBT, and (equally apparently) YHL.


    What do those abbreviations mean?

  19. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    huub wrote:
    >Mark South wrote:
    >> Apparently, YHBT, and (equally apparently) YHL.

    >
    >What do those abbreviations mean?


    STFW.

    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/Y/YHBT.html

    --
    Maurice

  20. Re: OBSD 3.8 default: Xorg or XF86?

    Mark South wrote:
    > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:35:51 +0000, jKILLSPAM.schipper wrote:
    >
    >> huub wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Same troll. Though I must admit it's views on the command line have
    >>>> merits. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>> Same: how do I know?

    >>
    >> Same response, see above...
    >>
    >> As to the command line - just fsck up X badly enough that it will not
    >> run for a couple of months, and you'll never want to go back for most
    >> common tasks (of course, editing an image on the command line, while not
    >> impossible, is not the most efficient way of getting the job done; and
    >> a rare few websites are not usable in w3m/lynx/(e)links/whatever your
    >> text browser of choice is).

    >
    > The best reason for having X is to be able to have lots of xterms open at
    > once. Even if you prefer console-based newsreaders, mail clients,
    > editors, etc, it's nice to be able to see them all at once.


    Hmm, I like screen(1) for that, or virtual terminals, or shell job
    control. Not simultaneous, but close enough for most practical
    applications. And screen can do split-screen.

    And I've not seen an xterm yet that can match the readability, minimal
    memory footprint and utter clarity of the console. Granted, that may be
    because I've not looked that hard...

    That being said, while I spent a couple of months without X, I'm growing
    rather too fond of www.userfriendly.org and a couple of other sites to
    do without some form of graphical browser again.

    Joachim

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast