>
> Hello !
> I am one of those many who supports the idea of new graphics
> interface which also means graphics device drivers in kernel.
>
> There are few things that arouse in to my mind when reading Linus
> comments on ggi.
>
> First is that if we follow standards there wont even possible use X
> with Linux, because the way X servers interact with kernel graphics
> hardware is not based on any standard.
Hmmm, it seems that X gone non-free. That makes it difficult for Linux
in general to use the newer releases :(
>
> So if X servers use no standardized ways to access hardware, I think that
> if we make graphics drivers in the kernel it the would actually create
> somekind standard for graphics.
Especially, as the KGI is the smaller part of GGI. libGGI is being
developed as a graphics standard.
>
> There is also one situation that is not discussed a lot, which is
> that almost all people hate X windows, it does not offer what they
> really want.
Nope. The people hate the window manager, their X11 desktop, and/or the
XFree configuration, but they usally don't hate X11, the protocol.
(It seems to me, that you haven't grasped the basics about X11 yet :) )
>
> So if you want make Linux popular among other people than Unix hackers
> you will need something else than X.
Nope. A *really nice* X11 desktop :) And the people will love how it
makes working in the network easy :)
>
> Things what people want (this may be really difficult for some to believe)
> - graphics interface which is so low level that it gives the programmer
> complete freedom (for example implement even X above it)
Depends upon who the people are. Game programmers yes. Users don't care,
or even would prefer a Win32 widget set in the X server.
> - is simple to learn
Again, whom are you talking about. GGI is primary a project targeted
at the programmer, it brings by default no new UI.
> - is stable
That's what we all want :)
> - takes little memory.
That's relative. It's difficult to argue for graphical support for a
state of the are 16MB video RAM, while at the same petition for the
server to use only 2MB of RAM.
> - offers complete control for graphics hardware.
Who would want this? The user? NO. The programmer? NO, why should the
programmer have to deal with the fact that a certain card has a hardware
cursor or doesn't have it?
> - Is fast
Again, that's what we all want.
>
> These above are all opposite on what X offers.
Nope. X11 as such offers all one would want. (Just compare x64 with the
directX port to windows on the same hardware: X gets just a magnitude
of frames/sec more than the all praised direct/X under Windows.)
>
> Okey X has XAA
> What is XAA , It is not X windows , It is Graphics Device Driver.
XAA is something internal to the XFree Server. You shouldn't really bother
with it. It is an architecture to make supporting common accelerated cards
easier to the device driver writer. (Before XAA, each developer would just
cook it's own soup *g*)
>
> So one has to start X to use Graphics Device Driver.
>
> Doesn't that sound a good idea ?
X is a good idea. X11 as a protocol is technologically superior to any
other mainstream GUI technology. What X11 lacks, is a proper desktop.
And that is being currently worked on by the GNOME and the KDE project.
So why bother with GGI?
KGI: Because the current X IMPLEMENTATION (not X11 as such) is broken.
The kernel should be able to manage the hardware.
libGGI: Because it makes your programs more portable, and they will
run as true console programs. (Sometimes this is what is wanted)
Andreas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu