i'll try to summarize and think on X and / or/ GGI the other way round.
please excuse
mind-boggling errata in this mail - but REPLY:
*) 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.
*) X should be as fast as SVGALib using DGA, shouldn't it? DGA is AFAIK
full screen with accelerated bitmap access.
*) games CAN use GLX (3D) or DGA for fast access.
*) most people do even play doom, quake, or other high performance games
windowed using local X.
*) local X is somewhat not as fast as it could be
*) X is userspace stuff
*) console-switching is not completely handled in kernel space
*) GGI takes over handling. KGI does cosnole switching, GGI does
accelearation in userspace(??).
*) GGI would perform as fast as X with DGA(??)
*) GGI would be like X with DGA and console switching completely done by
the kernel.
*) AFAIK fbcon is like X with console switching done by the kernel?
*) 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???
(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.)
kind regards, http://stud2.tuwien.ac.at/~e9525748/
Peter-Paul Witta mailto:e9525748@student.tuwien.ac.at FIDO 2:310/22.264
SAMBA SUPPORT - FAX SOLUTIONS - INTRANET / EXTRANET - DBMS SQL SOLUTIONS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu