[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Good news: no more begging for HW

Subject: Re: Good news: no more begging for HW
From: Miguel de Icaza <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:00:39 -0500
In-reply-to: <> (
> * 2. What kind of acceleration features are available on the SGI
> *    machines?  The X11R6 server has hooks for different set of
> *    features, so for example, bitblit can be easily hacked into the X
> *    server.
> *
> *    But I imagine the SGI has more acceleration features that I can
> *    dream of.
> The problem is that (I think) we have so many graphics cards that its done
> differently in every one (some cards are simple frame buffers (8/24bit), then
> there are some with multiple GE, oh and we also have extra visuals for overlay
> and pop-ups.

What does "multiple GE" stand for?  

Supporting a wide variety of devices in X11R6 should be quite easy.
This X server also can support multiple visuals on a display, so this
should be easy to hack on as well.

> *    I looked yesterday at a program called glxinfo, which led me to
> *    believe that applications may have some of the GL code linked in
> *    trough the libraries and the other part resides on the X server.
> Both :-) We don't do things the way easy here.

So OpenGL applications can run without an X server, or they have code
to bypass the X server if they need to?

> The is a GLX extension in the X server which allows GL to run in an X window.
> There is also I think a DSO that holds the hardware specific GL calls.

Sorry, but what does DSO stand for?

> To me the quickest (and the best) way of getting an X server would be if we
> could simply port the existing Irix X server to Linux/SGI. My suggestion would
> be, now that we have backing for hardware to get official backing for 
> software.
> I don't think we should neccesarrily release the source code for the ddx part
> of the X server to the public, but we should at least be able to get backing 
> to
> release .o files so the user could re-link the X server if they needed to (Sun
> have done this before).

Ok.  This sound good enough.  


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>