Is Kdrive what I think it is - a nanoscopically sized X server?

dav7 · 2008-10-12 11:54:33

This is more for the experience than much else if it helps to know: this means that I don't need this info urgently, and also means that it isn't the end of the world if it can't be done.

Ok. From what I've read, Kdrive is a really tiny X server with minimal dependencies and memory usage (and a bit less driver support too). Is this correct?

From an application perspective, I'm looking for a simple X server that can run in a small amount of RAM in a qemu session - say, 16 or 32MB, since I don't have a lot of RAM and also want to create the smallest swap-less system possible (I don't expect to run Firefox etc).

I don't need acceleration, gigantic resolution support, or much else that "full" X provides. The highest resolution I'll want to go to is perhaps 1280x1024, or much less likely 1400x1050. I'll probably sit at 640x480, 800x600 etc most of the time.

So, I'm thinking that an X server that relied perhaps on a framebuffer would be easy to set up, although I have an inkling that relying on the framebuffer won't give me xrandr support, which I do want. If Kdrive doesn't have xrandr support then that's okay, no xrandr then.

To turn this around a bit, let me define "the perfect server" and ask what server would best fit:
- Small and lightweight, both on disk
- Support basic Xlib/Xaw apps, xterm, etc, and maybe even GNOME/KDE stuff (not important at all, but nice to have support for)

I have heard of the names "Xephyr", "Xfbdev" and "Xvesa". I know they're X servers but not much else. Do any of these match the above?

PS. I also have a bit of an issue with compiling the latest Kdrive server from AUR (there's a PKGBUILD for it, as 'xorg-server-kdrive'): my related post about it is over here.

-dav7

k.mandla · 2008-10-12 12:39:39

I'm afraid the only suggestion I have for this one is to take a look at SliTaz, or perhaps get in touch with the developers over there. SliTaz uses xvesa for their 25Mb live CD, and they've done an amazing job with it. I can get 1600x1200x16 on an old Geforce 440 Go card without ever touching the configuration files, which is more than I can say for some other systems I've tried. ...

http://slitaz.org/en/

dav7 · 2008-10-14 11:54:35

Hrm, I need to bring this back up again, because after I recently obtained a new laptop, I tried the Xwoaf live-FLOPPY distro on it (yes, that old laptop had a FDD in it, just like every single computer I have ever owned minus 1 ) and was majorly impressed. Xwoaf stands for X windows on a floppy, and it sure does include X - Xvesa! In 1.44MB too, not 1.72MB or 1.96MB.

Xwoaf...
...is very easy to google .
...won't work in qemu
...'s binaries won't work on my modern kernel.

The second point is why I didn't mention it in my first post although the post was in part inspired by Xwoaf. However, since I've now run it, and it's worked (sans mouse, which I think is a hardware issue), Xwoaf beats SliTaz hands down - 1.44MB vs. 25MB, while both include X... I think we have a clear winner. Xwoaf even includes both xterm and rxvt.

So, how do I get X in less than 1MB?

-dav7

k.mandla · 2008-10-20 13:20:00

Got me. Is it still possible to communicate with the Xwoaf developer(s)? I know there are a lot of one-floppy distros out there, but you're the first person I've heard of to speak so highly of them.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-12 11:54:33

Is Kdrive what I think it is - a nanoscopically sized X server?

#2 2008-10-12 12:39:39

Re: Is Kdrive what I think it is - a nanoscopically sized X server?

#3 2008-10-14 11:54:35

Re: Is Kdrive what I think it is - a nanoscopically sized X server?

#4 2008-10-20 13:20:00

Re: Is Kdrive what I think it is - a nanoscopically sized X server?

Board footer