On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Chan Kar Heng wrote:
anyway, i'm comparing the effort required for adding GLX into
weirdx and trying to make xfree an activex..
cygwin/XFree has no 3d acceleration.
KH,
For GLX and OpenGL in java you can try Escher.
home pagehttp://escher.sourceforge.net/
docs http://escher.sourceforge.net/current/doc/index.html
project page http://sourceforge.net/projects/escher/
downloadshttp://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=9364
cheers
Chan Kar Heng,
WindowMaker, openbox, fvwm2 works fine in with weirdx and wierdx.net
only problem I am facing is, Unable to do XForwarding from wierdmind
and unable to contact author.
Pl. try to contact them at Jcraft
at [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they may be
I think you should describe exactly why you want to put XFree86 in a COM object, for
what purpose, what you would use it for etc. I presume you mean you want to make it
an ActiveX control, is this true?
actually yes, thanks for the more correct term.. an ActiveX control. :)
as described in
KH,
What is am saying is that COM, by itself, is something you have to sit down with for
a few months before you even realize if what you are suggesting is possible. No
amount of pointers from other people are going to help.
Similarly, X is something that you have to sit down with for a few
WindowMaker, openbox, fvwm2 works fine in with weirdx and wierdx.net
i c... thanks...
i tried icewm.. some of the things didn't work out.
only problem I am facing is, Unable to do XForwarding from wierdmind
and unable to contact author. -- wow.. big problem...
Pl. try to contact them at
:)
thanks... i've already tried weirdx out (as i've mentioned
when i first posted this question.)
it doesn't completely support X yet...
tried running several window managers on it and some
didn't function properly...
tried some games on it too.. same prob.
but my main issue with weirdx is a
Chan Kar Heng wrote:
thank you for the courtesy.. :)
.. and i would likely (85%) agree with you that i do not have a
firm grasp on the scope... probably more.. probably less..
but if i had a firm grasp, i probably wouldn't need to ask around
the gurus here right? :)
what i do hope is to be able
KH,
What is am saying is that COM, by itself, is something you have to sit
down with for a few months before you even realize if what you are
suggesting is possible. No amount of pointers from other people are
going to help.
Similarly, X is something that you have to sit down with for a few
hmmm... i'd certainly avoid porting XFree86 to use win32 instead of cygwin...
i have a feeling it'd be a *lot* of effort...
i'm thinking.. if it might work if all the .dll files and XWin.exe required were
compiled to .o or .a files.. then using a COM object, statically link in all
those .o or .a
Not to be rude... but I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope
of what you are talking about.
Harold
Chan Kar Heng wrote:
hmmm... i'd certainly avoid porting XFree86 to use win32 instead of cygwin...
i have a feeling it'd be a *lot* of effort...
i'm thinking.. if it might work if all
Harold,
At 15:50 2003-03-31, you wrote:
KH,
The scope is probably beyond the scope of this mailing list.
I think you would be better off working first on a version of
Cygwin/XFree86 that compiled without Cygwin... then, and only then,
could you even begin to worry about wrapping XFree86 with
12 matches
Mail list logo
