As we both agree on the relative merits of DirectFB (and disagree a bit on those of X and its extensions) and this is a DirectFB list, I'm going to just leave this as is. Besides, the whole X is ugly vs. no it's not debate has been done. :)
Jeff On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:14:54AM -0400, Gary MacDougall wrote: > 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.
