I have to agree with what is going on in this thread. I used to be a big fan of
GGI, because it allowed me to do lots of graphics work easily and without the
delays associated with using X lib drawing calls. I really liked the way the
whole thing worked because I could run it under many targets and the code
was portable. There were bugs in the code however, and some of the libs would
not compile (like libGGI2D) in the latest CVS version, and so I spent a day or
two fixing everything up and submitting a patch, (both to the authors and then
this mailing list) but I never heard back from anyone about if it was done or
how I could do it myself.
So I then gave up on GGI, threw it all out and now write for OpenGL, because
now
I need 3D and wanted to go with a standard rather than some library that might
not get finished. I keep my own patched version of the GGI libs for my legacy
code, but now steer completely clear of it because it is not reliable enough to
gamble my entire project on it. I tried to do my bit to make it work but
nothing
happened so I figured I would move on.
I imagine this is a feeling many people have, and why other libraries like SDL
have appeared and become very popular. It is unfortunate that this is the case
because the project was such a great idea at the time.
regards,
Wayne
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Piekarski - PhD Student / Lecturer Phone: +61-8-8302-3669
Advanced Computing Research Centre Fax: +61-8-8302-3381
University of South Australia Mobile: 0407-395-889
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research & Development Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SE Network Access Pty Ltd http://www.cs.unisa.edu.au/~ciswp
----- Original Message -----
From: Jos Hulzink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: Survey
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>
> > yes, indeed. I did work on some GGI code, and Andreas (and others) did
> > know about it. Andreas did mention a couple of times that I should get
> > write permission to commit my work. I did not get any write permission
> > (beside the sourceforge cvs, where almost nothing relevant has been set up
> > so far).
> > I'm sorry if this sounds aggressive, I am in fact pretty annoyed (I'm
repeating
> > myself, I think).
>
> You are pretty annoyed, I already stopped all my activities on GGI / KGI.
> Few points:
>
> 1) No documentation. If there is documentation, it is old and
> incomplete. Some people change things very fast, telling the newsgroup
> that this or that lib doesn't exist anymore, or "I just started a new
> lib", or "just changed the whole api". How are developpers supposed to
> follow this ? (I once had a complete 2D accellerated S3 ViRGE kgicon
> driver. It just doesn't work anymore for everything changed. Never saw a
> "what has changed" or "howto upgrade"
>
> 2) Many libs that do many things, but the core GGI / KGI is forgotten.
>
> I know, GGI has beautiful "everything is a target" capabilities. It is
> cool to see a cube rotating with six visuals on it. But the practical use
> is none. What I still don;t see is a 3D hw accellerated application
> running, neigther in X nor Windows nor KGI. Okay, 3D isn't also the core
> activity of GGI, but without it, what is the use of yet another graphics
> library. I have seen enough GGI emulation targets which make my 500 MHz Pc
> slow...
>
> 3) GGI and GII seem rather obsolete thanks to SDL. KGI has lost value due
> to the improving XFree (3d accel available, colour depth switching is
> coming). I know, XFree can't be compared with KGI, but at the moment,
> the only use of KGI for me would be getting my PPC into real textmode
> instead of Framebuffer, which would speed things up very much.
>
> Jos
>
>
