On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Gary MacDougall wrote: > Not the point at all. X might be lightweight memory wise, but its heavy > when it comes to configuration and installation. Nobody (I think) would > argue that X isn't for the faint of heart -- every try to get a video > card that isn't really that "popular" running under X? Better yet, ever > try to configure a reasonable font under X? Please.... All I'm saying is > that X is about 15 years old, its time to find a better platform, something > more reasonable to build your GUI foundation on -- yeah, KDE is fat, but > thats not the point. The point is when you slap KDE on top of X, then its > REALLY fat. X alone is fine. But X without a decent (and good looking) > window manager isn't useful for 99.9% of the world... you might as well > stay on the command line...
This is silly. XFree86 (example X implementation) is going configuration-file-free and the new fontconfig library for client-side fonts will have GUIs from KDE/GNOME to make font configuration a piece of cake. Hell, the config file is just an XML file in your home directory. X is old, but adapts surprisingly well. DirectFB is interesting because it provides a new method of providing hardware acceleration to windowed applications. XFree86 has considered a similar layered approach in the past but it never reached fruition (probably because there are relatively few people interested/capable of implementing it). DirectFB provides acceleration for things X just can't do yet. Further, it appears (from an outsider's perspective) to be more accessable to spare time developers. Don't dog X for being "fat" because it's not. DirectFB provides pixmap scaling, compositing/blending, and inter-window alpha blending acceleration in an exposure-free environment. That rocks. Could X do it? Yes, but not at the moment. Jeff -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-users" as subject.
