From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932178AbVH3Wiu (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:38:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932218AbVH3Wiu (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:38:50 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.194]:43787 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932178AbVH3Wiu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:38:50 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tbha+IYxiVBvGr0Ro4R4tTqbp16Hl0JYj80LapN97PUZ+iBul+LLSaY55eoAbkOcwNZGUYnebmjEzFqlbbkGNwVKYkt7KyYiwap9yF1YoG2nQrLfStQNh0Iwf5NRRl1JWCE2CKVYNW3MPTfOdX288IYUE4tYQFX1ya4tA0G955Y= Message-ID: <21d7e99705083015388794017@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:38:40 +1000 From: Dave Airlie To: David Reveman Subject: Re: State of Linux graphics Cc: Jon Smirl , lkml , Discuss issues related to the xorg tree In-Reply-To: <1125422813.20488.43.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <9e47339105083009037c24f6de@mail.gmail.com> <1125422813.20488.43.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > As the author of Xgl and glitz I'd like to comment on a few things. > > >From the article: > > > Xgl was designed as a near term transition solution. The Xgl model > > was to transparently replace the drawing system of the existing > > X server with a compatible one based on using OpenGL as a device > > driver. Xgl maintained all of the existing X APIs as primary APIs. > > No new X APIs were offered and none were deprecated. > .. > > But Xgl was a near term, transition design, by delaying demand for > > Xgl the EXA bandaid removes much of the need for it. > > I've always designed Xgl to be a long term solution. I'd like if > whatever you or anyone else see as not long term with the design of Xgl > could be clarified. I sent this comment to Jon before he published: "Xgl was never near term, maybe you thought it was but no-one else did, the sheer amount of work to get it to support all the extensions the current X server does would make it non-near term ..." I believe he is the only person involved who considered it near term, without realising quite how much work was needed... Dave.