Jeff Dike wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote: >> I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the >> user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation. > > Why? I've never understood what a framebuffer gives you that you > don't have now. Just like the network auto-configuration via dhcp, it would allow users to download images+kernel and run them like appliances without understanding anything about X or UML, just click and run. We are all capable of setting up Xvfb here, but most users are not, which is why they download ready-made images. It would also make it a lot easier to focus on writing a management UI, hell if there isn't one shortly after, I'll do one myself! Think of a UML browser image (running IE via wine in a limited image with just X + wine + IE - I would much prefer that to having wine+IE installed locally), testing framebuffer apps like gtk-fb/cairo-fb without risking your dev environment, etc...
Antoine ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
