| |||||||||||||
AIGLX vs. XglAIGLX vs. XglPosted Mar 8, 2006 14:36 UTC (Wed) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050)Parent article: Linux fragmenting at last?
Let me point out that the sentence 'AIGLX could work on top of Xgl' makes no sense. Xgl has supported accelerated indirect GLX (as have some proprietary GLX implementations) for a long time (way before Novell took its development behind closed doors for a while), in fact I believe it was one of David's main motivations to start working on Xgl. What is currently referred to as 'AIGLX' is not really a new concept but just extending the XFree86/X.org DDX with the capability of accelerated indirect GLX, which has been talked about for years but only now with GLX based compositing managers has become important enough to actually be done (but will be useful for other applications as well).
All of this is based on open protocols (X11, GLX, the Composite extension, ...) and APIs (OpenGL, ...) that are explicitly designed for interoperability, so there's definitely very little if any risk for fragmentation. Just good old choice, with all its (dis)advantages. :)
Hope this helps clear up some confusion.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||