On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:02:46PM -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
Linux basically falls behind on two simple fronts at the moment:
it has no simple 2D or 3D framework capable of much more than
I deal
Where DRI is not supported it's not used, why should any other driver be
forced to work every where?
All the current drivers barring some OS specific things like Linux frame
buffer driver work when DRI isnt available on that platform and fall
gracefully back to 2D with software 3D, including
Exatly, so what's the problem??
The new program won't do that. However the older X server will so this is
a non-issue. We are 'hopefully' talking about DRI enabeled systems,
making them better than Longhorn.
For non 3d(DRI) systems I would hope that Mesa would be able to use there
2d parts to
Opps, Jon sorry.
It's Jon Smirl's DirectFB replacement.
--- Mike Mestnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exatly, so what's the problem??
The new program won't do that. However the older X server will so this
is
a non-issue. We are 'hopefully' talking about DRI enabeled systems,
making them
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 21:08 -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
The second half of the first paragraph controdics with the first. There
are patches and the like avalible.
The second sentance is refering to the hotplug code, only needed for multi
cards(currently not suported)? Or did you mean
--- Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 21:08 -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
Your right about adding interfaces into the kernel, but what's
proposed(the non hotplug stuff) is small and relitively uninteresting
since it's not used by X. There are no currently pkged
--- Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 12:35 -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
2) copy of the user space code from XFree86 into a standalone library
- now you
have to be root to play with the chip.
3) Add a couple of IOCTLs to DRM to support modes/cursors. Do as much
of
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 14:11 -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
--- Michel Dnzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 21:08 -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
Your right about adding interfaces into the kernel, but what's
proposed(the non hotplug stuff) is small and relitively uninteresting
--- Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 14:11 -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
--- Michel Dnzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 21:08 -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
Your right about adding interfaces into the kernel, but what's
proposed(the non hotplug
--- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:42:58PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
X on GL won't ship anywhere for at least a year. It will probably be two
years
before it is in wide spread use. You can get good 3D cards for $35 now, in
two
years due to Longhorn all
So? My sister still uses a P120, and is happy with it. Why should she be
forced to upgrade?
I think that is a bit petty really, please try and keep this
discussion some way in the bounds of logic, at some point you have to
throw away older systems, X works on these systems now, we want to
On 14-Jun-2004, Dave Airlie wrote:
So? My sister still uses a P120, and is happy with it. Why should she be
forced to upgrade?
I think that is a bit petty really, please try and keep this
discussion some way in the bounds of logic, at some point you have to
throw away older systems, X
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:13:43PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
So if my ideas are so bad, why don't you propose your own solution to the
Longhorn problem? I have no attachment to anything I've proposed, I'll work on
any solution that solves the main problem.
Project Utopia, fixing window managers
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:44:06PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:42:58PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
X on GL won't ship anywhere for at least a year. It will probably be two
years
before it is in wide spread use. You can get
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
X on GL has no impact on remote X. Tests with glitz show a 100:1 speed
improvement for local drawing.
... on 3D-heavy cards, no?
I wonder what those same tests would show for the S3 Trio64 my sister
runs, or the ATI RageIIC my mother
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:00:59AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
So? My sister still uses a P120, and is happy with it. Why should she be
forced to upgrade?
I think that is a bit petty really, please try and keep this
discussion some way in the bounds of logic, at some point you have to
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 June 2004 05:40
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jon Smirl; Alan Cox; Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI Devel;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Xorg] DRI merging
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:47
Eric Anholt wrote:
I am definitely in favor of the DRI X tree stuff being a branch on the
X.Org tree.
I'd prefer to look at it slightly differently:
1) I'd like to get the current work in the DRI tree to a stable state, meaning:
a) finish (or part finish) Ian's NEW_INTERFACE work
b) import a
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:58, Mike Mestnik wrote:
The DRM is a kernel driver that allowes the user-apps to use a 3D cards
API. Fbdev is smaller then the DRM and will be asimulated and it's
functions emulated or replaced.
On Linux and FreeBSD only, and there isnt yet a consensus on the
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:20, Torgeir Veimo wrote:
At least he is trying. There's no need for bashing people who try to
implement new ideas.
I'm not. I'd rather he listened to new ideas and took feedback but that
is his business and the community has ways of dealing with that problem
that work
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:35, Jon Smirl wrote:
The work that would be wasted is extending the XAA 2D drivers to use the 3D
hardware to accelerate render.
Lots of hardware can do render without 3D operations. Even my
TV capture/playback card has blit-with-alpha on it. Extending existing
XAA
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
working X server. Two because mesa-solo isnt supported on most of
the Xorg platforms.
Alan
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
Linux basically falls behind on two simple fronts at the moment:
it has no simple 2D or 3D framework capable of much more than
I deal with embedded Linux people on a daily basis. I think they would
disagree. For 2D it has several in heavy use
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 16:34, Jon Smirl wrote:
The Microsoft Longhorn UI is going to trounce Linux on the desktop if we don't
get to work on a response. Getting mesa-solo running everywhere wouldn't take
two years if more people would pitch in and quit arguing. Right now we should
have a
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:39:12PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
Around 20 o'clock on Jun 13, Alan Cox wrote:
Secondly every line of code you put in the kernel has to be audited,
analysed and can introduce security holes or crash the machine.
The same is (alas) all too true for code
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:01:59 +0100
Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Of course, it's not for me to say how X.org (or XFree86) should be developed,
but it does seem like the X development to be done by developers formerly
known as DRI doesn't differ in any huge respect from the X
Around 10 o'clock on Jun 14, Matt Sealey wrote:
I half-baked agree with you! I am just looking for an accelerated
2D API that isn't permanently in testing and isn't X.
I'd like to think that cairo fits in this space; it's not X specific and
has acceleratable back-ends for GL and X.
-keith
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
Where can I find more information about mesa-solo? Is this the same as
miniglx?
Keithp is hard at work converting xserver to run on OpenGL. We already
have the render engine on top of of OpenGL finished in the
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 June 2004 17:25
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ryan Underwood; Jon Smirl; Alan Cox; Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI
Devel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Packard
Subject: Re: [Xorg] DRI merging
Around 10 o'clock on Jun 14, Matt Sealey wrote
Ohh I get it, on non dri OSes there is a PROFORMANCE LOSS!!!
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:58, Mike Mestnik wrote:
The DRM is a kernel driver that allowes the user-apps to use a 3D
cards
API. Fbdev is smaller then the DRM and will be asimulated and it's
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:58, Mike Mestnik wrote:
The DRM is a kernel driver that allowes the user-apps to use a 3D
cards
API. Fbdev is smaller then the DRM and will be asimulated and it's
functions emulated or replaced.
SNIP
In the shorter term
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top
of
OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
working X server. Two because mesa-solo isnt
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
Linux basically falls behind on two simple fronts at the moment:
it has no simple 2D or 3D framework capable of much more than
I deal with embedded Linux people on a daily basis. I think they would
The second half of the first paragraph controdics with the first. There
are patches and the like avalible.
The second sentance is refering to the hotplug code, only needed for multi
cards(currently not suported)? Or did you mean something else.
Your right about adding interfaces into the
Non DRI systems don't support DRI and have XAA instead. We should be free
to 'rm -rf' any thing we can replace with something better.
I can see XAA getting moved into Mesa(YUCK), but it's posible to do all 2d
drawing via OGL calls with a modified Xserver.
--- Keith Packard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 09:24:24PM +0100, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 June 2004 20:04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jon Smirl; Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI Devel;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Xorg] DRI merging
--- Martijn Sipkema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
Where can I find more information about mesa-solo? Is this the same as
miniglx?
Same thing. http://mesa3d.sourceforge.net/fbdev-dri.html
Keithp is hard at
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
working X server. Two because mesa-solo isnt
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:34:46AM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have no solution to non 3D heavy cards, you have no solution to
non-Linux hardware platforms. Most of your linux ideas have been thrown
out repeatedly as half-baked on multiple lists.
mesa-solo is a *research* project. If it works out then in two
--- Ely Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's like you say why not pick up the glove and
create a tree for it?
orginize a tree with a workplan I'm sure most people would be happy to
contribute, I know I would.
The work is already underway:
mesa-solo is here:
--- Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But fbdev only covers one of the supported OS'es right? Xorg runs on the
BSD's, Solaris, Windows/Cygwin, MacOS X, and many other platforms without
fbdev, so
it's very premature to say that work on anything else is wasted.
The work that would be
Alan Cox wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 16:34, Jon Smirl wrote:
The Microsoft Longhorn UI is going to trounce Linux on the desktop if we don't
get to work on a response. Getting mesa-solo running everywhere wouldn't take
two years if more people would pitch in and quit arguing. Right now we
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 June 2004 20:04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jon Smirl; Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI Devel;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Xorg] DRI merging
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
Linux basically
] Behalf Of Jon Smirl
Sent: 13 June 2004 20:14
To: Alan Cox
Cc: Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI Devel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Xorg] DRI merging
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have no solution to non 3D heavy cards, you have no solution to
non-Linux hardware platforms
Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
working X server. Two because mesa-solo
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 16:34, Jon Smirl wrote:
The Microsoft Longhorn UI is going to trounce Linux on the desktop if we don't
get to work on a response. Getting mesa-solo running everywhere wouldn't take
two years if more people would pitch in and quit
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
working X server. Two because mesa-solo isnt supported on most of
the Xorg platforms.
I'm not sure if you
If it's like you say why not pick up the glove and
create a tree for it?
orginize a tree with a workplan I'm sure most people would be happy to
contribute, I know I would.
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly every line of code you put in the kernel has to be audited,
analysed and can introduce security holes or crash the machine. Its
harder to debug and its harder to write in the first place. There are
very good reasons (see the original DRI paper)
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:20, Torgeir Veimo wrote:
At least he is trying. There's no need for bashing people who try to
implement new ideas.
I'm not. I'd rather he listened to new ideas and took feedback but that
is his business and the community has
--- Matt Sealey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need a low-level kernel graphics API (much like Windows
has, although Windows favours microkernels with high-level
kernel functionality, rather than monolithic kernels with
user-level functionality.. the two philosophies are at odds)
which can
--- John Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a properly designed kernel driver the X server does not need
to map the hardware into user space and run as root.
How do you efficiently control the hardware then without incuring the overhead
of user/system transition on ioctl's? How many
Around 21 o'clock on Jun 13, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
There would be no 2d drivers, only some basic mode switching and cursor
support and OpenGL?
For systems which would support OpenGL, this would be all that was required.
However, we still need to deal with the unwashed masses yearning
Around 20 o'clock on Jun 13, Alan Cox wrote:
Secondly every line of code you put in the kernel has to be audited,
analysed and can introduce security holes or crash the machine.
The same is (alas) all too true for code within the X server as well. An
ideal situation would have the X server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 13 June 2004 20:22, Keith Packard wrote:
Around 10 o'clock on Jun 12, Eric Anholt wrote:
I am definitely in favor of the DRI X tree stuff being a branch on the
X.Org tree.
me too.
A question is how the future modularization of the
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:47:37PM +0100, Matt Sealey wrote:
Having a capable accelerated 2D and 3D architecture, something
like DirectFB but at more of a core and commercial level
would benefit everyone. Building a single DDX driver to
interface with this would simplify support for X - no
X on GL has no impact on remote X. Tests with glitz show a 100:1 speed
improvement for local drawing.
--- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:13:43PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
So if my ideas are so bad, why don't you propose your own solution to the
Longhorn
X on GL won't ship anywhere for at least a year. It will probably be two years
before it is in wide spread use. You can get good 3D cards for $35 now, in two
years due to Longhorn all systems will be shipping with them.
I still own an 8086 based machine with no protected mode, does that mean
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:44:43 +0200, Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 23:17 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
I would like to see a merge from DRI CVS to X.Org in the near future.
Is there any opposition to this?
No opposition, but a concern: Where are we going to
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 08:40, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:44:43 +0200, Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 23:17 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
I would like to see a merge from DRI CVS to X.Org in the near future.
Is there any opposition to this?
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 07:44, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 23:17 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
I would like to see a merge from DRI CVS to X.Org in the near future.
Is there any opposition to this?
No opposition, but a concern: Where are we going to integrate the DRI
with the
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 11:40:42AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
multi-head and ryan's latest work removes the hallib requirements from
the matrox driver,
Not yet. Hopefully soon. :)
--
Ryan Underwood, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL? Keithp is hard at work converting xserver to run on OpenGL. We already
have the render engine on top of of OpenGL finished in the glitz project. All we
are missing is pbuffer support in the mesa hw drivers and some
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 19:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
OpenGL? Keithp is hard at work converting xserver to run on OpenGL. We already
have the render engine on top of of OpenGL finished in the glitz project. All we
are missing is
--- Eric Anholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I understood, Mesa-solo required the linux framebuffer, which
I don't have. I seriously don't want to be the one to start work on the
mode-setting library. As far as pbuffers, once we've got the glue
necessray I'll fix up the SiS driver for
66 matches
Mail list logo
