Re: replacing X Window System !

From: linux cbon
Date: Fri May 19 2006 - 18:40:17 EST

--- Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a
écrit :

>There is nothing "modern" about graphichs in the

It depends on the meaning of graphics :
If it is direct card access, then kernel job.
If it is higher level like window system etc, then it
can be discussed...

>The modern (and safe) approach
>is graphichs separated from the kernel. This is one
of the many
>things that unix got right from the very start.

Unix was not designed for graphics.

>Second - who cares what is "modern" or
>Nobody, except people buying clothes. For computer
>software, we care about stability and performance.

Is X so stable and performant ?
For instance, X is not precise enough to make
compatible implementations. and are not compatible.
Some graphic drivers work only with special versions
Gnome and KDE are not compatible.
Other example : can X follow new graphic progress ?

>but then there is no reason to stick it in the

Usual reasons : Reusability, portability, ease of
maintenance, speed, etc.

What do you think of solutions using framebuffers like
directfb or fbui ?
It is in the kernel, the hardw access is direct, it is
fast and stable.

Why X.Org puts so many layers between the hardware and
the screen ? It adds complexity and slowness to the

I think the discussion should move to X.Org ?


Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour retrouver directement vos services préférés : vérifiez vos nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches et suivez l'actualité en temps réel.
Rendez-vous sur
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at