Getting to a GL based X server

[Glynn Clements]

Michel Dänzer wrote:

> > > > If you're really arguing that every server, even those running on chips where
> > > > we have no hardware 3D support, should be running on a GL engine, then I'll
> > > > just stop listening now, because you're delusional.
> > > 
> > > No one is taking away your current server. You are free to continue using it.
> > 
> > But is it going to continue to be supported by anyone?
> > 
> > Or are we looking at a future where implementing the equivalent of
> > Notepad will require either:
> > 
> > a) a full-featured OpenGL implementation with multi-texturing,
> > programmable shaders etc, or
> > 
> > b) a bunch of obsolete libraries which are no longer maintained and
> > can only be compiled with decade-old versions of gcc, libc etc?
> 
> We're discussing implementation details of the X server, which are
> mostly hidden from the client side by the X protocol.

OK, I was getting ahead of myself there. Let me take a step back and
ask whether we looking at a future where text rendering involves
throwing textured quads at an OpenGL driver (which, for primitive
hardware, is going to be Mesa)?

If we are, it isn't very far to a situation where Gdk, Xlib etc are
discarded, everything assumes that you have an OpenGL back-end, and
primitive 2D operations (of the sort which were routinely accelerated
a decade ago) end up traversing a complex pipeline of operations which
may be implemented in software (possibly with no special treatment
when the operations all happen to be identity transforms or similar
"special" cases).

There's a difference between getting something for free and paying for
it whether you want it or not.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>