Re: GGI might be the way...

On Sunday 23 March 2003 09:49, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 2) Moving to a direct rendering model WILL increase performance. GGI
> >    provides this model, and also lets us run X today!
>
> Why not fbdev/DirectFB/XDirectFB ? It seem to have more acceptance and
> usage than GGI, which as my following of it has died a few years ago.

Firstly, let me point out that I'm not an XFree86/DirectFB/GGI hacker of any 
sort, so the technicalities of what I say may be completely wrong. I'm just a 
casual user with an interest in what happens to XFree86. You must also excuse 
if I ramble a bit :)

I've always thought that a networked layer on top of a direct rendering model 
is more sensible than the other way around. I can see how it might not have 
been in the past, but times change. 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?

GGI was a nice idea, but from what I can gather, it does nothing that other 
alternatives can't do better. But yes, direct rendering layer==good, IMO. 
Can't see why DRI hasn't got more support when I would say that for a lot of 
people now, this is more important than network transparency. People do like 
graphical operating systems, and resonsiveness is key. XFree86 feels more 
sluggish than Windows on my dual-boot machine, and it's nothing to do with 
the window manager. Games run at roughly the same pace, but only because the 
X drivers eschew the normal X rendering interface. Things generally run 
faster under DirectFB natively than under X.


> > 4) Xf86Config files must die

IMO, XFree86 is already pretty good at figuring stuff out by itself. I usually 
go with the defaults it detects (except screen resolution etc.). The config 
file is dead easy to understand too, especially when compared to the other 
config files I've seen. Also, think of the Linux distributions that "just 
work": Knoppix, for example, boots straight into X and KDE and in the 
majority of cases it autodetects and autoconfigures stuff to an excellent 
degree.

--jaa