On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 16:04, Denis Oliver Kropp wrote: > > 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.
yeah if you really make this one come true, then you can fully count on me. i am willing to talk with other people and get them interested into directfb. > > 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. yes, but i pretty much think (and thats my opinion here) that we should use the default GNOME stuff and make them support directfb if possible. this will reduce duplication of things, will keep the gnome stuff together as is and will also demonstrate gnome as powerful desktop running on directfb and i bet in no time this mailinglist is filled with 1000 more people :) > 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. yeah i am in the lucky position to have a matrox g400 dh32 -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
