* Linux GUI considerations
@ 2003-02-04 22:19 Otto Wyss
2003-02-05 8:38 ` Fredrik Noring
2003-02-05 19:44 ` [wx-dev] " Otto Wyss
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Otto Wyss @ 2003-02-04 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'wx-dev@lists.wxwindows.org', linux-fbdev-devel
Sorry for bringing this subject up here but IMO it's very important for
a better success of Linux (specifically for Linux on the desktop). And
IMO wxWindows is (or could be) one important component in helping
bringing more acceptance to Linux. Besides also wxWindows would profit
from a widespread Linux.
I fully agree with James Simmons when he complains about "Linux will
NEVER move into the desktop market!" (See
"http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20030131_203.html"). But
it's not only the free beer mentality or the missing jobs. It's also
because there is no pressure for any manufacture to invest at least a
minimum amount in Linux because not even home users are attracted by
Linux not to speak of business users.
Now why don't use everybody Linux if it's free? IMO one of the main
reason is there isn't a nice looking GUI and what's there is much too
complicate to set up. No end user (except "fanatics" like we) will ever
go through fixing an X configuration if it doesn't work right out of the
box which is much too much the case. And no end user will ever even look
at the console. No reseller will ever sell a machine with Linux to an
end user just because of these facts. Almost none of the PDA manufatures
considers Linux since it's almost impossible to bring anything nice on
the screen.
And what about the framebuffer alternative? While it might have the
potential to overcome the above obstacles, it's not even considered by
the vast majority of the current Linux user base itself. It's obvious to
anybody that the current framebuffer API isn't well suited as a base GUI
interface. Otherwise everybody would start using it, porting their
software to it. Even if it's done (like GTK 2.0) there is no use of the
framebuffer except as a base for an X server or a bigger console. Just
ask yourself, why isn't there already a framebuffer port in wxWindows?
What could be done to change this situation, especially what can the
wxWindows and the framebuffer people do? Since wxWindows has to draw its
controls on many different machines it's probably well known how an easy
to use interface of the underlying system should look like. And the
framebuffer people certainly know well how such an interface could be
implemented. So why don't sit some wxWindows guys together with some
framebuffer guys and try to work out a solution which suits both sides?
Of course anybody of us has more than enough of his own tasks but it's
probably not asked too much about sharing its knowledge at least in
giving ideas or hints in which direction such a task should head. Also
to hear if this is altogether useless or if a successful solution could
be reached is welcomed. I'd be very pleased if some could be persuaded
into actually contributing anything, is it advice, knowledge or code.
IMO it's time that this task gets started.
What I'd like to know is what kind of API or functionality is necessary
for using it directly from wxWindows so a useful port could be
considered. Best would be if a specification or wish list could be
worked out which could be given to the framebuffer people for
consideration. They then might give feedback what can be done and how
much effort it'd need to implement. Or if there are other alternatives?
I'd like to keep this discussion here in the wx-dev mailing list (at
least for the start) but welcome any suggestions for a better place.
O. Wyss
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GUI considerations
2003-02-04 22:19 Linux GUI considerations Otto Wyss
@ 2003-02-05 8:38 ` Fredrik Noring
2003-02-05 19:44 ` [wx-dev] " Otto Wyss
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fredrik Noring @ 2003-02-05 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: otto.wyss; +Cc: 'wx-dev@lists.wxwindows.org', linux-fbdev-devel
Hi,
> Almost none of the PDA manufatures considers Linux since it's almost
> impossible to bring anything nice on the screen.
I believe Sharp Zaurus SL-5600 runs Qt/Embedded on a framebuffer. I
haven't tested it myself, but there are some nice screen shots here:
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qtopia/screenshots.html
Fredrik
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [wx-dev] Linux GUI considerations
2003-02-04 22:19 Linux GUI considerations Otto Wyss
2003-02-05 8:38 ` Fredrik Noring
@ 2003-02-05 19:44 ` Otto Wyss
2003-02-05 20:13 ` Sven Luther
2003-02-05 22:03 ` Jon Smirl
1 sibling, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Otto Wyss @ 2003-02-05 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wx-dev, linux-fbdev-devel
> From: Julian Smart
> I would certainly be keen to encourage better uptake of Linux through
> use of wxWindows, but I have to take issue with the argument that
> a framebuffer-based approach is going to help this. XFree86 has had years
> of development and tweaking. Are you really saying that we could
> write a better X11 replacement? Even if we did and managed to write
> a 3rd super-duper desktop environment with all the required little apps,
> we'd face a huge struggle in persuading people to use our particular
> environment instead of X11.
>
XFree86 has done a tremendous amount of effort. Still large part of this
is simply spent in the wrong places. Instead of keeping writing directly
to the hardware they should concentrate in building kernel drivers,
maybe separate maybe together with the framebuffer people. Currently it
looks close to that they fear anybody may come up with a better X
solution if the hardware part is made generally available. A second
part, the network part, is in a desktop environment or a PDA simply not
necessary but it's not possible to get rid of it. And can you explain
why VNC created their own protocol?
> >I fully agree with James Simmons when he complains about "Linux will
> >NEVER move into the desktop market!" (See
>
> Chicken/egg...
>
Yes but if nobody starts to build eggs out of "nothing" you'll never get chickens.
> I may be missing your line of reasoning here, but I think the main
> reason for lack of Linux uptake in the home is the lack of software,
> in particular games (pity Loki didn't succeed). So rather than
> invest in an entirely new GUI solution, perhaps the effort would
> be better spent on porting or writing games and other software...
> as well as trying to persuade more companies to release on
> Linux (by telling them how easy wxWindows is to develop with!)
>
There will be never any successful Linux gaming business as long as
graphic cards manufactures don't provide their own written Linux
drivers. Again a chicken/egg situation.
> From: Robert Roebling
> > why isn't there already a framebuffer port
> > in wxWindows?
>
This was more a rhetorical question for the framebuffer people.
> From: Vadim Zeitlin
> RR> > why isn't there already a framebuffer port
> RR> > in wxWindows?
>
> FB port could be useful for the devices such as PDA and, especially
> considering that it shouldn't be that difficult to create a wxFB port, I
> hope that this is going to happen if any interesting FB-based systems
> appear. For now I don't know of any however.
>
IMO an FB port isn't even for PDA's a real alternative, since in a few
years PDA's will have the same power as desktop systems and requests
similar GUIs.
> RR> The Linux desktop will be based on X11 or it
> RR> will not happen at all.
>
> And I'd really like to sign under this. I really don't understand why so
> many people hate X so much. IMHO it's a very decent system. As for the
> Linux desktop, it is alive and well alive. Whatever you may think of KDE (I
> don't think much as I never used it myself anyhow) it's an amazingly
> successful project.
>
Just look at the decision of the "Deutsche Bundestag" about using Linux
on the desktop (with KDE and OpenOffice).
> From: Julian Smart
> Interesting. Here's another relevant story from today -- a Desktop Linux
> Consortium:
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/1579921
>
Really interesting, especially the sencence about "end-users" shows that
I'm on the right track.
What alternatives are there?
- sticking with X11: While this is currently the only working solution,
Linux won't get a widespread acceptance. It will silently evolve in its
niche but won't break out of it.
- trying a framebuffer port: This won't be successful as long as the
single application approach is overcome (also for PDA).
- trying a DirectFB port: This might be an alternative but my knowledge
is too small to say more. Someone with more insight should have a look.
- using QT: This might help Linux but it's no alternative for wxWindows.
- changing X11: I have absolute no wish to get into a flame ware with
the XFree86 people.
- reactivating Dinx: From the echo in the kernel mailing list this isn't
an option. Maybe it could be integrated into the framebuffer but this is
up to them.
- building a new API: As Julian said this is probably out of question.
Much too much work and persuasion has to be done.
- re implementing a current API: IMO the only possible way is to take
the Xlib API, leave away any unnecessary functionality and re implement
it based on the framebuffer.
- others: Suggestions?
If you question if this is altogether possible, look at MacOS X. Why can
Apple build a GUI on top of FreeBSD without requiring a single line of
configuration from the user? Why can't this be done with Linux? Besides
why has MacOS a GUI right from the start but Linux hasn't? Besides MacOS
is famous for building a GUI where an ordinary user feels comfortable
with. IMO this should be equally possible for Linux and wxWindows and
not even that difficult. I'm not saying it isn't much work but it's
doable.
O. Wyss
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [wx-dev] Linux GUI considerations
2003-02-05 19:44 ` [wx-dev] " Otto Wyss
@ 2003-02-05 20:13 ` Sven Luther
2003-02-05 22:03 ` Jon Smirl
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sven Luther @ 2003-02-05 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otto Wyss; +Cc: wx-dev, linux-fbdev-devel
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > From: Julian Smart
> > I would certainly be keen to encourage better uptake of Linux through
> > use of wxWindows, but I have to take issue with the argument that
> > a framebuffer-based approach is going to help this. XFree86 has had years
> > of development and tweaking. Are you really saying that we could
> > write a better X11 replacement? Even if we did and managed to write
> > a 3rd super-duper desktop environment with all the required little apps,
> > we'd face a huge struggle in persuading people to use our particular
> > environment instead of X11.
> >
> XFree86 has done a tremendous amount of effort. Still large part of this
> is simply spent in the wrong places. Instead of keeping writing directly
> to the hardware they should concentrate in building kernel drivers,
> maybe separate maybe together with the framebuffer people. Currently it
Well, remember that X don't run on just Linux, so i guess they are
afraid of duplicating the work, having to rewrite the driver for each OS
they run on. And as a X driver writer, i understand that concern.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [wx-dev] Linux GUI considerations
2003-02-05 19:44 ` [wx-dev] " Otto Wyss
2003-02-05 20:13 ` Sven Luther
@ 2003-02-05 22:03 ` Jon Smirl
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jon Smirl @ 2003-02-05 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: otto.wyss; +Cc: fbdev
--- Otto Wyss <otto.wyss@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> What alternatives are there?
Use OpenGL as your base API.
http://fbdri.sourceforge.net/
Framebuffer would be used to initialize the hardware
and handle VT switches. DRM would coordinate with FB
on the VT swtiches so that X could also be run if you
want it.
OpenGL contains a fine 2D API in addition to the 3D
one everyone knows about.
=====
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-05 22:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-04 22:19 Linux GUI considerations Otto Wyss
2003-02-05 8:38 ` Fredrik Noring
2003-02-05 19:44 ` [wx-dev] " Otto Wyss
2003-02-05 20:13 ` Sven Luther
2003-02-05 22:03 ` Jon Smirl
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).