Re: why not DirectFB?

[Chad Hardin]

I really go back on forth on the DirectFB thing.  The main problem is 
that linux video support is in a big flux right now and I'm not sure 
how it will turn out.

My hope is that what ends up is something like this:

X11 stops being a gigantic device driver.

Instead, it relies on a linux kernel which has rich support for video 
cards, including 3D (sadly, doesn't seem likely, we'll see).

Preferably Linux would have a rich 3D device driver model and a stable 
OpenGL library which works on that.  I could then write a "nano" window 
server on top of that.

I'm still gonna plug away with DirectFB, but it's lack of heavy support 
for ATI and nVidia, the major players, discourages me a bit.  That's 
not their fault though.


Chad



On May 28, 2004, at 7:46 AM, andrez wrote:

> Chad Hardin wrote:
> > Yeah, I'm working on this, but it's slow.  one of those "Real Life" 
> > things.
> > I don't think there would be any objections to accepting a directfb 
> > patch once I have one  :-)
> > Remember though, some people prefer X.
> > Chad
>
> Iunderstand, but I guess, that people can commit code would they know 
> more about your idea. Real life is a thing that Micro$oft benefits 
> from. But the more people we have working on the project,  the more 
> real-life thing impacts us.
> As far as I understand, the DirectFB guys have also all that sound 
> libraries integrated, and when using DirectFB you need no window 
> manager and it has it's own cut'n paste.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep