Seriously. From what I remember of KGI as an unsuccessful attempt at improving the state of graphics on Linux/Unix, graphics hardware support was a seriously difficult issue:
- documentation was not available;
- these pieces of hardware were huge, with numerous and variable features (combined with the fact that the most advanced features were deliberately left non-documented).
Kernel fb support may not necessarily imply that the graphics hardware is documented enough to support advanced features (esp. wrt performance). OpenGL ES some 3D support, but doesn't it also implies a restricted set of advanced graphics operation?
Maybe I am underestimating KMS + OpenGL/ES. That's a really pretty good start certainly: but is it *enough* to provide the experience that people like Shuttleworth seems to expect?
If no, how are we going to convince manufacturers to provide better documentation of their hardware? (X as a project was doing a decent job at that - probably in part due to its maturity and overall success.)
We need to ensure that life after X will provide us with something really worth the effort to switching (not even counting the network transparency feature drop - which I would personnally linger for).