ible
professional vim user
oh, and, of course, showing the handoff from EvilDragon to zmatt (or whoever it's going to), with sparks flying, ghosts emerging, and that sort of thing.
In case you're stuck with the test image for some reason (e.g. because it comes with your prototype), do this to get a proper LXDE desktop:Did you ever have a chance to install the proper OS image? I'm sure we would all love to see more of this running/working near-final prototype in action.
# cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/1-fbdev.conf
Section "Device"
Identifier "LCD"
Driver "fbdev"
Option "fbdev" "/dev/fb0"
Option "Rotate" "CW"
EndSection
X1:23:respawn:/usr/bin/startx
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JgXfiKglfQ
Yeah that's my video.What's the deal with this video [1]? It shows a desktop of a system running a kernel called "4.7.0-letux-pyra-r+".
I don't want to get into one of these boring lengthy arguments, but was there a technical reason for not enabling Systemd on the Pyra, apart from having a minimal test image?
Extreme stubbornness to accept change.Maybe I missed it, but was there an answer to sulu's question?
Sort of.Maybe I missed it, but was there an answer to sulu's question?
We've been running Systemd on the devboards since jessie was testing. aTc plans on using systemd, having him rewrite all the init stuff at this point seems like more work.So currently there is no reason to assume, that there will be Systemd-related problems on the Pyra. To be precise though, there is no proof either, that there won't be any problems.
So the strict answer to my question was: "No."
And yet there are users claiming to use "non-bloated" desktop environments because they take less time to start . I agree that too much of the conversation revolves around boot time though. I use it because of the nice tooling. I know everyone doesn't like it, but I find it nicer to have a set of sanely named basic tools with a consistent interface than a hodgepodge of separate ones with imaginative names, configuration conventions, documentation and command line switches. Of course if one is already grown accustomed to some set of tools it's hard to let go, but if you can it may turn out for the better in the long run. Anyway, let's not turn this into yet another a systemd thread. If someone insists on having a say, let's move to one of the pre-existing ones.Depends. On my desktop, systemd takes about three times as long to boot as compared to sysvinit. On a friends laptop running ubuntu, systemd is slower than upstart. But supposidely, it's quicker for some. I consider boot times a stupid argument for one or the other, computers today are so fast anyway that nobody cares.
For servers yeah, but for anything else I tend to keep them in the lowest energy consumption state convenient whenever they're not in use. Keeping, say, a desktop computer on at night just for the uptime doesn't come off as practical, at least. I boot once or twice per day, typically, depending on the upgrades available.Am I the only person who remembers when months long uptime was a badge of honor? How often are you people rebooting that it's a design consideration.
Funny, I have trouble sleeping without the sounds of my computer fans whirring. plus no heat in my room, it helps keep the room sort of warm in the wintertime.I turn all of my x86 computers off at night, as their fans are too noisy.
A friend of mine used to have a beefy dual-socket 1HE server he got for cheap because some intern dropped it and damaged the front cover, which canceled its support contract or something like that. He didn't mind sleeping in the same room at all, but he wasn't able to hear his alarm clock anymore. Placing it on the floor was a great replacement for the vacuum cleaner, though.Funny, I have trouble sleeping without the sounds of my computer fans whirring.