Not at all. We're pursuing two courses of action right now, that are not mutually exclusive.
Jon Smirl's argument is that we can satisfy both needs simultaneously with a GL only strategy, and that doing two is counter productive, primarily on available resource grounds. My point is that I don't think the case has (yet) been made to put all eggs into that one basket, and that some of the arguments presented for that course of action don't hold together. - Jim On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 16:39 +0000, Andreas Hauser wrote: > jg wrote @ Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:59:33 -0400: > > > Legacy hardware and that being proposed/built for the developing world > > is tougher; we have code in hand for existing chips, and the price point > > is even well below cell phones on those devices. They don't have > > anything beyond basic blit and, miracles of miracles, alpha blending. > > These are built on one or two generation back fabs, again for cost. > > And as there are no carriers subsidizing the hardware cost, the real > > hardware cost has to be met, at very low price points. They don't come > > with the features Allen admires in the latest cell phone chips. > > So you suggest, that we, that have capable cards, which can be had for > < 50 Euro here, see that we find something better than X.org to run > on them because X.org is concentrating on < 10 Euro chips? > Somehow i always thought that older xfree86 trees were just fine for them. > > Andy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/