Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:12:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:12:49 -0500 Received: from [196.12.44.6] ([196.12.44.6]:18918 "EHLO students.iiit.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:12:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:51:21 +0530 (IST) From: Prasad To: Raphael Schmid cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: Bootscreen In-Reply-To: <398E93A81CC5D311901600A0C9F2928946936D@cubuss2> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The linux progress patch could be what you want. I tried porting this to 2.4.18 and was successful in just a couple of hours. I have tested the thing on many systems. It worked well. If any one is interested maybe i can mail you the patch for 2.4.18-4. Prasad. On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Raphael Schmid wrote: > Hello World, > > this eMail shall be a means of bringing up again a topic I believe has > already been discussed extensively. Wait! Don't delete, read further > please! > > [ Note: please cc: me in any replies as , > since (a) I'm at work and (b) not subscribed to the list. Thanks. ] > > It is my very understanding one can not have, conveniently it should be, > a simple *bootscreen* under Linux. With that I mean a picture of at > least 256 (indexed) colours at a size of 640x480 pixels. Doesn't have > to be a higher resolution. And yes, I'm taking the standpoint that every > computer nowadays [where this shall be possible] *can* do that resolution. > > Framebuffer, I hear people shouting? Well. During the last *two days*, > which includes one full night, I've been trying to get my v2.4.20 kernel > to display such a bootscreen. All I get is segfaults. I've tried what I > believe to be every tool out there: pnmtologo, fblogo, boot_logo, the > GIMP plugin. You name them. None of which wouldn't have required any > hacking to work with 2.4.20, by the way... > > And maybe it's right, maybe I demand too much from the (VESA) framebuffer. > Maybe my picture is also too complex, but I've tried simple ones as well. > And anyway: I don't *want* any simple picture, I want as complex a picture > as it gets. In 640x480. At 256 indexed colours. > > So although I'm just learning C and can't code it myself, here's an idea: > > If Syslinux can display this kind of images, and if LILO can, so why would > Linux be unable to display it? VESA was the term, if I right remember? > If this request is too much of an effort to implement, then couldn't there > be a kernel configuation option that simply tells Linux to leave the screen > as it is, until some user space software (X) changes it? (In conjunction > with console=/dev/null or something). I just want my picture remain there. > > I realize these ideas may sound kind of alien to you, but they make sense. > Windows, MacOS all have bootscreens. There really is no way why Linux > shouldn't. > > In that veine, another thing I've been puzzled with... can you somehow > disable > virtual consoles (Alt-Fx) completely while still maintaining an interface > for > X to come up on? > > Thanks for reading through until here. Thanks for any considerations in > advance. > > Your truly, Raphael > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Failure is not an option - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/