[Thread Prev][Thread Next]   >Date Index >Thread Index

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

Martin von Weissenberg - Thu Aug 21 15:14:31 2003

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

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