Re: replacing X Window System !
From: linux cbon
Date: Fri May 19 2006 - 18:40:17 EST
--- Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a
>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
X.free and X.org 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 http://fr.yahoo.com/set
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/