From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4B71381F3 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E26F7E0B08; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAFA0E0AEC for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57F033E9CB for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:00:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.954 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.445, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.507, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2BYObJJS6t25 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1A2B33DABF for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:00:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V5HmI-0001qs-1I for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:00:30 +0200 Received: from z65-50-57-227.ips.direcpath.com ([65.50.57.227]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:00:30 +0200 Received: from reader by z65-50-57-227.ips.direcpath.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:00:30 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Harry Putnam Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Is Vesa/Uvesa still the way for Frame buffer Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:57:44 -0400 Organization: Still searching... Message-ID: <87y58kultz.fsf@newsguy.com> References: <8738qsw0y4.fsf@newsguy.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: z65-50-57-227.ips.direcpath.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:I5U7Tm4adQKIqucyxmuDWItqiUI= X-Archives-Salt: 0e587a1c-79a5-435c-bc4a-4a7b55490110 X-Archives-Hash: af50c32d29e88514dcb8cc29e0c14742 Harry Putnam writes: > It could be typified by the kernel line used in grub.conf like this > one: > > kernel /vmlinuz root=/dev/sdb3 vga=0x31A video=vesafb:mtrr,ywrap I should have included this information: Kernel is v. 3.8.13, and it is a gentoo install as guest on a windows7 64bit, using vbox=4.2.16 r86992