Re: aterm whacked?
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:59:03PM -0700, Neil Short wrote: Any ideas? My choice would be rxvt-unicode instead of aterm. I used to use aterm, then one day decided I wanted unicode support. . . . and rxvt-unicode (aka urxvt) supports pseudo-transparency, much the way aterm does, too. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Anne McClintock, University of Wisconsin: The decisions that really matter are made outside the democratic process. pgpiwAQqZyPuV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: aterm whacked?
That's it! I have an ATI Radion on this box. The screen res is 1280x800 which is not supported by vesa. I dug up my old backup xorg.conf file and realized I had set ati as the driver and was full of good experiences with it. I had just forgotten. Also, for the record, this fix also fixed my linux-firefox/linux-flashplugin issue. much appreciation. == If not us, who? And if not now, when? Ronald Reagan --- On Sun, 7/13/08, Luke Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Luke Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: aterm whacked? To: Neil Short [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sunday, July 13, 2008, 11:56 AM On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Neil Short wrote: I just mem-wiped my laptop and am in the process of installing everything after. I have several issues (linux-firefox with linux-flash plugin crashes on sites with flash), not the least of which is aterm doesn't seem to behave very well. When I run aterm I get: $ aterm aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D etc. Transparency doesn't work right either - which I see is the greatest attraction to aterm. Any ideas? I had this problem with an old Sony Vaio about a year ago. Xorg detected that the correct video driver to use was neomagic. Whatever automatic configuration method I was using at the time decided that I should be running with 32-bit color depth in xorg.conf. It turns out that the neomagic driver doesn't support color depth greater than 24-bits... This misconfiguration worked well enough until something like aterm tried to use transparency, then it would complain about the BadMatch, referring to the color depth that the driver supported versus the color depth that X was configured for, presumably. I found two solutions. One was to edit the Screen section of xorg.conf to remove the entry with DefaultDepth 32. The other was to edit xorg.conf to use the vesa driver instead of the neomagic driver. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: aterm whacked?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Neil Short wrote: I just mem-wiped my laptop and am in the process of installing everything after. I have several issues (linux-firefox with linux-flash plugin crashes on sites with flash), not the least of which is aterm doesn't seem to behave very well. When I run aterm I get: $ aterm aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D etc. Transparency doesn't work right either - which I see is the greatest attraction to aterm. Any ideas? I had this problem with an old Sony Vaio about a year ago. Xorg detected that the correct video driver to use was neomagic. Whatever automatic configuration method I was using at the time decided that I should be running with 32-bit color depth in xorg.conf. It turns out that the neomagic driver doesn't support color depth greater than 24-bits... This misconfiguration worked well enough until something like aterm tried to use transparency, then it would complain about the BadMatch, referring to the color depth that the driver supported versus the color depth that X was configured for, presumably. I found two solutions. One was to edit the Screen section of xorg.conf to remove the entry with DefaultDepth 32. The other was to edit xorg.conf to use the vesa driver instead of the neomagic driver. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aterm whacked?
I just mem-wiped my laptop and am in the process of installing everything after. I have several issues (linux-firefox with linux-flash plugin crashes on sites with flash), not the least of which is aterm doesn't seem to behave very well. When I run aterm I get: $ aterm aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D aterm has encountered the following problem interacting with X Windows : Request: 64,Error: 8(BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)) in resource: 0x14D etc. Transparency doesn't work right either - which I see is the greatest attraction to aterm. Any ideas? == If not us, who? And if not now, when? Ronald Reagan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
