Re: State of Linux graphics

Jim Gettys
2005-09-01T20:18:26Z

Not at all.

We're pursuing two courses of action right now, that are not mutually
exclusive.

Jon Smirl's argument is that we can satisfy both needs simultaneously
with a GL only strategy, and that doing two is counter productive,
primarily on available resource grounds.

My point is that I don't think the case has (yet) been made to put all
eggs into that one basket, and that some of the arguments presented for
that course of action don't hold together.

- Jim

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 16:39 +0000, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> jg wrote @ Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:59:33 -0400:
>
> > Legacy hardware and that being proposed/built for the developing world
> > is tougher; we have code in hand for existing chips, and the price point
> > is even well below cell phones on those devices. They don't have
> > anything beyond basic blit and, miracles of miracles, alpha blending.
> > These are built on one or two generation back fabs, again for cost.
> > And as there are no carriers subsidizing the hardware cost, the real
> > hardware cost has to be met, at very low price points. They don't come
> > with the features Allen admires in the latest cell phone chips.
>
> So you suggest, that we, that have capable cards, which can be had for
> < 50 Euro here, see that we find something better than X.org to run
> on them because X.org is concentrating on < 10 Euro chips?
> Somehow i always thought that older xfree86 trees were just fine for them.
>
> Andy