Getting to a GL based X server

[Jon Smirl]

On 5/25/05, Jim Gettys <Jim.Gettys at hp.com> wrote:
> This is the crux of the issue: at what point do we "commit" to this
> path?  I think most acknowledge that the redundant driver development is
> costing us greatly, and it is pretty clear where the future is...

How can we arrive at a consensus (if we can?) that a GL based X server
is the future?

Technically I don't see any problems building one. There are a few
issues that aren't fully worked out but nothing that appears to be
unsolvable. We already have Xglx as a demo and it works pretty well.
In a little while Xegl will be ready and it will work without being
nested in another Xserver. But Xglx and Xegl are demo vehicles and not
production servers.

I would argue that the sooner we can commit to something like this the
better. For example the design of low end servers may change a lot if
they go with software based OpenGL-ES running Xegl. The shift to Xgl
may trigger the development of more OpenGL-ES stacks.

On the other side no one is going to take away the current server. If
you have existing hardware it will continue to work with the current
server. Depending on how modularization goes it may be possible to run
both XAA and Xgl in the same server although it is not clear to me how
DRI would work in the XAA case.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl at gmail.com