On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:27:23AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest reason against this is that X (as it is now) support not only
Linux but many other OSes: in particular BSD(s) and Solaris. Moving
stuff into Linux kernel creates a fork of the drivers which is
undesirable..
That's
we move the whole driver structure to kernel? Drivers for every other device
Not really.
STRUCTURE. For a great UI, we need DMA, vsync and devices communicating with
each other directly or with little overhead. Why insist on doing this in
A video driver has to have extremely good latency,
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Peter Surda wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:48:56AM +0100, MichaelM wrote:
Would you consider it a good idea to make DRI part of the source of a
kernel? Direct 3d graphics supported from the boot sequence.
Hmm I thought DRI is part of the kernel? Perhaps you
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Peter Surda wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:01:33PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
Send us a mail that isn't from a windows machine, and you might get an
interesting discussion. As it stands, I can barely tell what you are going
on about.
Dude, I think that
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:48:56AM +0100, MichaelM wrote:
Would you consider it a good idea to make DRI part of the source of a
kernel? Direct 3d graphics supported from the boot sequence.
I'm really concerned about your answer. There was a whole thread on
the linux-kernel mailing list
I'm really concerned about your answer. There was a whole thread
on the linux-kernel mailing list about the hypothesis of the
release of an X-Kernel, a kernel which would include built-in
desktop support. Most people answered, no, this would be
ridiculous, other said, yes, but hardware
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Sottek, Matthew J wrote:
The basic idea in the framebuffer is fine, but the implementation
isn't very good. It is more grown out of console functions rather
than starting from a graphics driver perspective.
Not to burst anyone's bubble here, guys, but shades of GGI going
Would you consider it a good ideato make DRI
part of the sourceof a kernel?Direct 3d graphicssupported from
theboot sequence.
I'm really concerned about your answer. There was a
whole thread on the linux-kernel mailing list about the hypothesis of the
release of an X-Kernel, a kernel which
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, MichaelM wrote:
Would you consider it a good idea to blah blah blah?
Send us a mail that isn't from a windows machine, and you might get an
interesting discussion. As it stands, I can barely tell what you are
going on about.
-jwb
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:01:33PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
Send us a mail that isn't from a windows machine, and you might get an
interesting discussion. As it stands, I can barely tell what you are going
on about.
Dude, I think that Outlook is crap too, I had to administer a couple of
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, MichaelM wrote:
Would you consider it a good idea to make DRI part of the source of a kernel? Direct
3d graphics supported from the boot sequence.
I'm really concerned about your answer. There was a whole thread on the linux-kernel
mailing list about the hypothesis
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:48:56AM +0100, MichaelM wrote:
Would you consider it a good idea to make DRI part of the source of a
kernel? Direct 3d graphics supported from the boot sequence.
Hmm I thought DRI is part of the kernel? Perhaps you meant the DRM part of it.
I'm really
12 matches
Mail list logo
