Re: X without a monitor?!


The errors you report from X make it sounds as though X hasn't been
configured on your machine.  Not too surprising.  But as I said before
it's quite likely that the machine _is_ capable of running the X server
and has some kind of framebuffer even if there's no monitor connected to

If your machine has a video output connector of any kind, then it has
all the hardware you need.  But configuring X on your machine might be
difficult without sighted assistance, if the initial Linux/OS install
did not detect your hardware correctly.  This of course is a problem
that needs solving, if that's the case.

The program usually run from the command-line to configure the X display
is called "xconfigurator".  But I would recommend instead that you ask
around other people with your same make and model of computer (including
graphics subsystem, if you have those specs), and copy their
(known-to-be-working) "XF86Config" file to /etc/X11/XF86Config.  It's
fairly common for Linux people to trade these files around based on
their hardware configuration.



On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 12:40, Buddy Brannan wrote:
> What a ridiculous concept, eh?
> Well, this computer doesn't have one (what do I need one for?), and I
> want to try out gnopernicus. Kick the tires. Scream with frustration
> like the rest of you. All that. do I get X to run if I
> don't have a monitor? Currently, it barfs and chokes and gags and dies
> with:
> XIO:  fatal IO error 104 (Connection reset by peer) on X server ":0.0"
>       after 0 requests (0 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
> I reckon I shouldn't be surprised. Still, all docs seem to assume one
> has a monitor. (What an erroneous assumption.) After this, I'll go
> back to reading docs and come back with more (hopefully less stupid) questions.
Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]