On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Ian C.Sison wrote:
..
> You are right there about the cruft and baggage it has to inherit from
> yesteryears requirements. However the client-server technology i
> believe won't cut it for true direct to the hardware video updates for
> simple display management. There's too much overhead if you simply
> want to manage a _local_ display.
Hmm.. ever heard of DGA? :)
But your point is well-taken.
..
> If you want to use remote X sessions, then use the real X windows
> implementation, as no one is really stopping you from doing so. My
> suggestion is an alternative [bastardised] implementation of the X API
> which does away with all possibleoverhead, and yet tries to remain
> compatible in order for higher level layers to still work.
You know, such a thing exists. It was developed by Keith Packard and is
included in the XFree86 4.x source tree. It's called NanoX (I think..
can't remember too well) and is supposedly for embedded applications but
you are certainly free to use it on the desktop. The X server fits under
1MB of RAM, doesn't handle remote (TCP/IP) connections but otherwise is a
normal X server. It's 2D ONLY though (no fancy OpenGL for you here).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> POTS Phone: +63 (2) 937-2293
Mosaic Communications, Inc. GSM Mobile: +63 (917) 531-5893
Any sufficiently perverted technology is indistinguishable from Perl.
-
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
