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 <raphael@arrivingarrow.net>,
> 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:20 EST