Re: [RFC] Xen Virtual Framebuffer

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>]

Jon Smirl wrote:

>On 12/5/05, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Jon,
>>
>>The basic problem is running something like gdm or nautilus which want
>>to own the root X window.  You'd have to use something like Xnest.  It
>>doesn't help much with VT switching either which would be a really nice
>>feature to has.
>>    
>>
>
>Xnest is the best solution for multiple root windows. With virtual
>framebuffers you are just building Xnest again via a different
>mechanism. Xnest has the advantage that you can use hardware
>acceleration from the X server in dom0.
>  
>
I like Xnest quite a lot.  We need something that's available when X 
isn't though (for the VT console for instance).

You certainly don't have to run X on /dev/fb0.  It's mostly to make 
text-mode and distro installation a whole lot more user friendly.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>>However, using remote X is a good option for a number of use-cases so
>>it's certainly appropriate for certain environments.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Anthony Liguori
>>
>>Jon Smirl wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I haven't tried playing with X and Xen, but why doesn't it work to
>>>just treat the multiple domains like a network? You run X in dom0 and
>>>give it full access to the video hardware. Then you ssh into each
>>>domain and start X apps, just like you do when using X remotely.
>>>OpenGL will even work this way and be accelerated (as soon as X fixes
>>>indirect acceleration). This model should let you get apps up from
>>>each domain simultaneously on the X display in dom0.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jon Smirl
>>>jonsmirl@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>--
>Jon Smirl
>jonsmirl@gmail.com
>
>  
>