Roland Nagtegaal wrote:
Another thought:
The major Linux distributions all come with non-standard kernels.
They all ship systems with enhancements to the kernel like the
improved RAID system, ReiserFS, extra drivers etc. etc.
Somebody on this list was busy with making a GGI centric Linux
"Jon M. Taylor" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Jon M. Taylor wrote:
Linus would just say what he has always said:
* Show me the code
* Direct Rendering is necessary for performance reasons
Woops, I accidentally posted this before I finished arguing those
points:
*
"Jon M. Taylor" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Antonio Campos wrote:
I've reading the superb interesting thread about KGI/GGI and the need
for a great change in the console (graphics console?) layer of the Linux
kernel to improve the graphical situation of the OS.
It looks like Linus
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Antonio Campos wrote:
_I_ *know*, from long personal experience, that it is not. Our
code is good enough to speak for itself now. If you want to help GGI to
succeed, do it by helping us with some task.
If only I knew where to begin...
Well, there are
James Simmons wrote:
* Direct Rendering is necessary for performance reasons
This is where people disagree the most on. One side states graphics should
be done completely in userland (Linus and XFree86). Some want everything
in the kernel, been tried with other UNIX systems. The best
Don't these two points contradict each other ?
In what way ?
Virtualizing the graphics pipeline requires the graphics API used by
application programmers to be much more abstract.
True but abstract in the way that it doesn't define anything. Even on SGI
servers the hardware varies so
Christoph Egger wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Antonio Campos wrote:
_I_ *know*, from long personal experience, that it is not. Our
code is good enough to speak for itself now. If you want to help GGI to
succeed, do it by helping us with some task.
If only I knew where
James Simmons wrote:
If the protocol uses
pixels as the basic unit, how can you write a resolution independent
(and coordinate system independent) graphics server ? (just to name
an example). This is seen nicely in font handling. Of course, anti
aliasing and all the advanced text
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:15:55PM +0100, Antonio Campos wrote:
I don't agree with you here. It can be the political future, but I can see a
lot of bad things in X that don't make it the proper election for the future.
I'm not talking about politics, I want GGI to succeed in Linux as much as
Roland Nagtegaal wrote:
I'm not talking about politics, I want GGI to succeed in Linux as much as anyone
of you. It's just common sense that right now, graphics on Linux means X.
common sense doesn't necessarily reflect reality ;)
Therefore: improve on X.
nobody is against that.
First:
They don't, by all accounts. Linus' dislike for the fbcon/fbdev
system is well-known. He doesn't mind DRI so much, probably because its
maintenance is sponsored by a commerercial entity (VA Linux) which fixes
bugs that pop up and enhances the API when needed.
And it also doesn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
