Re: [wmx] checking for X... no

On torstai, elo 21, 2003, at 15:09 Europe/Helsinki, Lauren Commons 
wrote:
> 1) In the readme it says that "wmx makes realtively
> heavy demands on the performance of your X server..."
> As I mentioned, my laptop is rather long in the tooth.
>  Is wmx really the best choice if one of the problems
> I'm trying to solve is that I don't want the
> performance hit of a more bloated system?  I DO love
> the simplicity of wmx, and would sacrifice some
> performance for the spiritual calm I get from keeping
> my display clean and simple ;-)  Oh yeah, and virtual
> desktops.  Very valuable on a small laptop.

Err... the only way to find out if wmx performs acceptably on the 
laptop is to try it out.  I'm familiar with the laptop in question and 
it is fast enough to run wmx without problems, but I suspect your 
biggest problem will be the memory footprint.  The Porteges are not 
very upgradeable in that respect.

You might want to try the flwm (http://flwm.sourceforge.net/) or 
Blackbox or even WindowMaker.  There's an exhaustive list of window 
managers at http://www.plig.org/xwinman/.


> 2) When I tried to run 'configure', I got the error
> message in my subject line above.  But I DO have X;
> after all I am running KDE.
> I have a pretty basic Redhat 8(?)installation;  I am
> clearly not an X programmer, so I'm not sure what
> other info youmight need.  I browsed the list archive
> but didn't see anythign that looked quite like this
> problem.

Have you got the XFree86-devel package installed?  It might be that 
configure can't find X11/X.h...

--Martin