James Simmons wrote:
1: Design must provide a mechanism for basic mode setting in a device independent manner from an application with user level permissions. ("Basic" to be defined)
Ug. I see I'm fighting a losing battle but it doesn't matter. I couldn't never win this fight. There is MONEY involved here. This is a sure way
to make sure Tungstengraphics has a income coming in. They want a monoply on the linux graphics arena then fine they can have it.
Are you completely without a clue? Nobody from TG is even participating in this discussion (except a couple messages from Jens a week or so ago). Why would you even say such a thing?
I do feel remiss that I'm not engaged more fully in this, but really much of the ground covered is way outside the areas in which I feel qualified to comment, or perhaps it's just that I don't have an opinion either way about mode-setting, etc, based on long years of just having the X server take care of it for me...
Anyway. I've got a lot of respect for the people involved in the discussion, even when they hold quite conflicting views, so I'm hopeful that some sort of direction can be reached for moving forward.
My one worry about the discussion is that because of confusion over where the X developers are hanging out nowadays, they are missing out on having their say on this - and they probably care deeply about modesetting. Though, given the mad flamewar it's turned into, maybe smaller is better...
Keith
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
