| |||||||||||||
The Xouvert projectThe Xouvert projectPosted Aug 21, 2003 11:02 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786)In reply to: The Xouvert project by arvidma Parent article: The Xouvert project Why one would want to make it slower and harder to debug? (threading may increase responsiveness, but it has a significant drawbacks especially when the SW in question accesses HW directly and can leave your machine in unusable state) Main problems of XFee86 are lack of architectural documentation for the server itself (different versions of them) and it's build system. After these are fixed, there can be more developers who can do the actual features etc.
(Log in to post comments)
The Xouvert project Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:37 UTC (Thu) by arvidma (subscriber, #6353) [Link] Well perhaps, but it's still darn frustrating that it can't utilise SMP as good as should.
The Xouvert project Posted Aug 28, 2003 23:18 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] That is exactly why, IMHO of non expert, that all drivers for Video 3D devices, pointing devices and Monitors, that are now in the "USERSPACE" XFree86 code, should pass for "KERNEL SPACE".The problem in my view, is not a fork of XFree86 or more openness, but a better "STANDARD" model,... and if Linux would allow sometime in the future another kind of "windows generator" besides Xwindows,... and how the code is going to interface Linux Driver Model, with udev, kobjects, sysfs anf possibly DKMS,..., or any other future developments. OK... XFree is a standard, at it should continue to be, but it dosent need to have a M$ attitude or "WE" could try pass some of that to KDE vs GNOME!... The Xserver itself, or part of it, that dont thouch directly the HD could then be made in several threads. If Xouvert is only about openness, then IMO it includes a lot os waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||