Re: [forum] GGI might be the way...
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 13:18, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > I've always thought that a networked layer on top of a direct rendering > > model is more sensible than the other way around. > > How does direct rendering over a network layer work, anyway? :) I'm sure you know what I mean ;) > > I would very much like to see more support for (X)DirectFB in the future. > > I like it now, but it doesn't have the driver support I need right now to > > use it in a serious environment (I need hardware OpenGL). Would/could it > > ever be the case that DriectFB be merged into XFree86, or that the two > > projects become co-operative so that DRI code is shared? > > I'm not sure the former is even a good idea (did you mean XDirectFB?), > but I certainly hope the latter will happen. AFAIK there is some ongoing > work in that direction. What I meant was, would it be possible for the driver code be shared between DirectFB and XFree86 (or anything else that wants to use it), i.e. an open driver structure (this seems to be a popular idea on this list anyway). What I'm saying is: X Applications -> Window Manager -> XFree86 -> Rendering Layer seems to make less sense (intuitively) than: X Applications -> XFree86 -> Window Manager -> Rendering Layer > > Things generally run faster under DirectFB natively than under X. > > I must say I was impressed how snappy XDirectFB was even without any > hardware acceleration when I tried it a while ago. Apparently lots of > potential there. Absolutely. --jaa
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]