> > Okay, I'm confused. > > > > Why is the above X11 server not complex but my audio/video server box > > idea complex? > > > > Is there a significant difference in complexity between an X11 server > > and a television server? I was thinking the same server could do both. > > Pretty much. > > Television is more difficult than CRT, IMO, so an embedded X11 solution > would be easier than TV, I feel.
By "Television", do you mean composite/s-video/component interface? By "CRT", do you mean a RGBHV (and sync variations) interface? > > X11 server in PROM is very nice, it allows using the X terminal as a > > RS-232 console for headless computers without a catch-22 of needing the > > computer to be up to serve the X-server code to the X terminal and needing > > the X terminal up to see why the computer will not boot. If you have a > > problem booting the computer, you can use X's cut-and-paste to capture > > the messages. > > In the South, we call this "going around your elbow to get to your > thumb." Anyone who needs an RS-232 console isn't going to bother with > this, there are tons of existing solutions on the market. What bother? Plug the RS-232 cable into the port on the X-terminal. Done. It works very nicely. > Even better are the "ethernet console" devices, which translate > video/mouse/keyboard signals into packets sent over a network to the > remote administrator's console. a) What makes you think that a headless computer *has* video/mouse/keyboard signals? b) The video/mouse/keyboard to Ethernet boxes I've seen are absurdly expensive. If they were reasonably priced I'd look into them. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
