Jeff Brubaker wrote: >>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.
As much as I'd love to agree with you here, the simple fact is that existing version of XFree are NOT easy to configure and not particulary good for the current desktop competition/technology (XP,Aqua etc.). I think its wonderful that the folks developing XFree are looking at the configuration issues and font issues, but I've always said, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, its still a pig...". Thats not to say X is a pig, its just to say that the product/technology is way past the point of "enhancing" and at the point of being what it is. I've never felt comfortable running a desktop layer ontop of X, i've always felt that its a "patch" for something that >>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). I disagree. I think the problem is that most linux developers see this as a lower priority since there is *already* a desktop implementation which "does the job". I think developers are looking towards doing things that haven't been done before, there seems to be a lot more focus on server side stuff lately, I wonder if what we're talking about is related to that (lack of interest in the desktop?!) Plus, as we know this would be very hard to do... it would require some dedication and experience beyond hacking a couple lines of DFB code. >>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. No arguments there. I see it as a layer for embedded and standalone type applications first. Howevever, it doesn't preclude it from being the underpinnings of a desktop. I think nobody here would argue that. >>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. I'm actually not dogging on X. I've used X windows since 1987 when I was a software engineer at a minicomputer company called Prime Computer. I loved it then, and I love it now. But I also know that it was NEVER intended to be used for what people are using it for now. Lets face it, X is getting long in the tooth for the modern desktop... thats all i'm saying. Jeff -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-users" as subject. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-users" as subject.
