> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Andre Ulrich wrote: > > there is a discussion about DirectFB on Slashdot. Maybe this is a good > > chance to promote GGI a little bit and make people aware of its > features. > > I posted something I felt appropriate just now under > "GGI Perspective: clean code is good code." > > I hope it gets modded up. I figured since we plan to keep > friendly relationships with the DirectFB project, it was best to > be constructive and not just barge in and plug away :-) > > This is the text I posted FWIW: > > Normally I would be one of the ones saying "Ugh, not another > half-ass > graphics standard," as I am developer for the GGI Project, which, if > very slowly, is creating the ultimate (IOO) cross-platform and > cross-display-system graphics API/library. I make no such complaints > about DirectFB (well, OK, I do complain about their input system :-) > and here is why: DirectFB is coded in such a way that it contains > easily reusable, easily understandable graphics driver code. Both > DirectFB and X have unique content -- there aren't that many > implementations of hardware level blitting/overlay libraries > available. Unlike X, DirectFB is modular and developer-friendly. In > fact so much so that the current version of LibGGI can use > DirectFB's > binary graphics driver modules.
There's merely one comment on your statement as of this writing: ------------------------------------------------------------------ libggi on top of directfb on top of fbdev - oh the irony ;-) I agree X isn't developer friendly. But the code actually _is_ modular... ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- CU, Christoph Egger E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net
