Quoting Ali Akcaagac ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Hello, > > I am following the DirectFB development and System for quite some time > now and was playing with it for 1-2 weeks now and the results where > really impressive.
Thanks ;) > I compiled GTK+ CVS HEAD with directfb support (not linux-fb) and played > around with the gtk-demo. Later on I had the idea trying to compile > GNOME using directfb itself since the GDK backend of GTK supports it and > I know that many GNOME libs/apps support direct GDK calls rather than > X11 calls. > > Thus my idea was to try to see how many libraries and gnome apps could > be compiled without X support that this fails was absolutely clear to me > since certain GNOME libraries are simply tied to X11 functioncalls. > After spending some days with it I was able to hack around some stuff > only to see how far I could go having things run wasn't my first > intention, it was only to see how much of GNOME could be compiled > without X and I figued out that half of it compiles without significant > problems. > > The idea of directfb comes really handy because I somehow see it as a > total replacement of Xfree (maybe not now but maybe in a couple of > years). Think about the benefits you trash 150mb of Xfree in favor of > 200kb directfb library, having your linux kernel boot into a framebuffer > environment will also come closer to what the old Amiga Desktop used to > be, no Console+Desktop environment anymore. Everything becomes one. You > boot linux (or any other framebuffer supporting plattform) and voila be > in your GNOME desktop. > > I have written 2 emails to Desktop-Devel-List some weeks ago and also > talked with various people about it. The idea itself is brilliant but > realizing it may be difficult and wasn't thought any deeper by me. But > here the 2 mails that I wrote, it explains a bit more the benefeits that > I see of this idea becoming true. > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-May/msg00805.html > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-May/msg00849.html This is what we've been thinking about several times, starting with that sounds like a good idea and will show which desktop functionality is missing in DirectFB, e.g. a common native window manager. > Could I interest some people to think about this idea and at least > helping me to convince the GNOME developers to use and support directfb > whenever possible so for the future a possible port may become easier ? I'm interested in Gnome without X11, but I don't have any time for working on it. I'm not even sure if I want to use the Gnome Panel. I've started a very simple panel called "Chief" based on lite. It only has a clock and a text line field for starting apps. This was just a test and things like limiting the area of the desktop (for maximizing apps) are needed. > I am now subscribed here because my other email that I sent here > obviously never showed up. So I would pretty much like to get an answer. > Having one of the dominating Desktop Environments support DirectFB (not > XDirectFB) would probably be a big push forward for the directfb team > and probably results in more people getting interested into it. From my > personal experience many people heard about DirectFB but simply have no > clue until one stands up and tell and show them. And from personal > eperience a lot of people simply were impressed after they got shown. That's true, the screenshots on the web site can't fully expose the power of DirectFB, only a few people try DirectFB themselves. Another problem is that all drivers but Matrox lack full transparency support. -- Best regards, Denis Oliver Kropp .------------------------------------------. | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | | http://www.directfb.org/ | "------------------------------------------" Convergence GmbH -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
