State of Linux graphics
airlied at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 15:38:40 PDT 2005
> 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...
More information about the xorg