State of Linux graphics
jg at freedesktop.org
Thu Sep 1 13:18:27 PDT 2005
Not at all.
We're pursuing two courses of action right now, that are not mutually
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.
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.
More information about the xorg