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:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Can't distro install into a domain be handled on a virtual serial line
>and Linux terminal emulation? This seems like a lot of work to go
>through to get something like Redhat's graphical boot working.
>  
>
I added a section to the Wiki page for discussion of various approachs 
and the pros/cons.  Feel free to extend this information.

So far, the framebuffer has not been all that much code (only a few 
hundred lines) so I think the benefit from the increased usuability is 
well worth it.

Thanks for the feedback,

Anthony Liguori

>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>--
>Jon Smirl
>jonsmirl@gmail.com
>
>  
>