Peter-Paul Witta <paul@ping.at> wrote:
> *) X is somehow monolithic and not modularized enough. there are many
> options, GLX, DGA, Xmitshm, and "standard X" - and, last but not
> least, XAA. some of this options can be demand loaded, some cannot.
This is an implementation detail, not an architectural implication.
> *) X should be as fast as SVGALib using DGA, shouldn't it? DGA is
> AFAIK full screen with accelerated bitmap access.
I don't know about DGA.
> *) games CAN use GLX (3D) or DGA for fast access.
Games under X should be using mitshm for fast access (or is this
what you mean by DGA)?
> *) most people do even play doom, quake, or other high performance
> games windowed using local X.
No.
Either they play the games unwindowed, or they play them using local X.
> *) local X is somewhat not as fast as it could be
This is mostly an issue of card support, as I understand it. There's
plenty of room for improvement here.
> *) X is userspace stuff
Which means it can be fast.
> *) console-switching is not completely handled in kernel space
Yes, but this statement is almost content-free.
> *) GGI takes over handling. KGI does cosnole switching, GGI does
> accelearation in userspace(??).
Sortof.
> *) GGI would perform as fast as X with DGA(??)
Currently, X is faster than GGI.
> *) GGI would be like X with DGA and console switching completely done
> by the kernel.
No.
GGI would be like SVGALIB, except GGI programs could run under X as well
as on the console. Then again, presumably you could write an SVGALIB
which would let programs run under X as well?
> *) AFAIK fbcon is like X with console switching done by the kernel?
No.
For example, fbcon doesn't deal with mouse issues (focus, ...). fbcon is
Fa mechanism for stuffing pixels onto the screen.
> *) GGI would require the linux team to get accelerated graphics
> drivers. now the X team handles this. does the linux team have enough
> manpower to over-take this work as well???
Actually, this would probably be the GGI team, since the drivers would
still be in user space.
> (i left out stuff like console pairing, multiple keyboards, multiple
> mice and so on on the ggi side. i don't believe this would affect many
> users. multilple screens is more interesting, but this can be relized
> with X too.)
Presumably all of it could be dealt with in X. However, there are some
things which have been included in the X standard which aren't supported
by XFree86, and there are some things that would have to be added to the
X standard.
There's a lot of graphic talent on the GGI team, I wonder what would
happen if they started hacking on X.
-- Raul- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu