![]() The third one requires the most effort in the long run but it can be built incrementally. ![]() I personally favor the first one since I believe it requires the least coding effort. There are many diverse opinions for and against each of these strategies. Single code base but a lot of effort will need to be put into software Mesa.ģ) Build both a 2D and OGL based server in the same app. The new server is completely dependent on OGL and has removed all of the ancient 2D support.Ģ) New server only – Build a new server like Xegl but port support for all of the old 2D hardware to it by using software Mesa to emulate OGL hardware. For OGL capable hardware build a new server like Xegl with an xlib compatibility layer. It’s not too hard to add new 2D drivers to it. I still don’t think an consensus has been achieved on this point.ġ) Fork – the current X server is mature and it fully supports 2D hardware just fine. There many possible software strategies for the Linux desktop to take advantage of GPU off-loading. And I seriously doubt that you’ll be running same one on different implementations. In my opinion, best tech for desktop is AIGLX.įinal solution as you called it (or the best of evolution) will be option to pick the most suited and the best working of three for your specific case and use. XeGL is just one of the solutions (and will be probably used in a lot of implementations), but I suspect XeGL is not the desktop material. and is ideal for other purposes not covered by first two. It even allows disabling and rendering trough the 2d. Trouble with all legacy hardware, but ideal for embedded and some specific hardware.ĪIXGL is using 3d where it needs and it runs in base server. XeGL is 3d drawing (where all 2d is handled trough 3d, without 2d handling possibility) in base server and footprint is small. It should drive the same thing, but still completely different. You actualy don’t need a lot of it for basic composing.Īlso notice that both aiglx and xgl are not the final solution, they’re just different methods to make easier to evolve x.org to something like xegl, AFAIK (being xgl the most radical and the one that needs more work) So when all this work is really finished (1-2 years at least) what is going to limit the amount of graphic effects you can get is your graphics card regardless of aiglx or xgl. This is why libCM is becoming some kind of standard between them. At the end, all this work is done just to offload work to the GPU. There should not be graphics AIGLX effect that XGL can’t do, and the reverse.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |