On 17 Aug 2001 00:02:04 -0400, Brian S. Julin wrote:
<snip>
> What DirectFB has that LibGGI currently doesn't is:
>
> 1) Blt/ROP/Alpha support
libblt and the new libbuf?
> 2) Motion Video support
Isn't this in libovl or does it not work yet?
> 3) management of layers (beyond what we can do with memvis/display-sub).
What exactly are layers?
>
> DirectFB is best suited for persons developing embedded apps or not
> caring if their program is very portable.
Interesting.
> GGI of course is more portable across OS and display system than anything
> else. It's also a bit more mature in certain areas (e.g. they only just added
> vc-switching support to DFB, and it will probably not be quite right
> for a little while unless they take a long hard look at our linvtsw.so)
>
> > (and tend to prefer GGI to a small extent as a result.) I'm still
> > a beginner with both APIs and have a hard time seeing advantages
> > and disadvantages to the different directions taken.
>
> DirectFB won't tap your hardware to its limit,
Why is that?
> and will probably
> be a bear when graphics resources run low,
Is this what libgalloc handles?
> but if you are satisfied
> with the environments it will run under (overbudgeted hw, linux only,
> probably some architectural restrictions) and you need features GGI
> does not have right now and cannot afford to wait for GGI to develop
> those features (and it will be a good long wait, I must be frank)
I hope to help to minimize the wait =-)
> then DirectFB is an OK choice.
>
> --
> Brian
>
--
Thayne Harbaugh
