| |||||||||||||
Wayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speakWayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speakPosted Feb 14, 2013 6:21 UTC (Thu) by Serge (guest, #84957)In reply to: Wayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speak by rossburton Parent article: LCA: The X-men speak
Why people always talk about Wayland as an alternative to X and never mention DirectFB? It should be better than wayland in every aspect. It's fast and small, it works even on embedded devices. And looks nice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_YieaGDBM
DirectFB people never attempted taking the place of X.Org. They could, just never tried.
(Log in to post comments)
Wayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speak Posted Feb 14, 2013 13:56 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
It's definitely not "better in every aspect". DirectFB is a very lightweight X-server look-alike moved into the kernel. It has no real support for running OpenGL applications and can only do simple compositions.
Wayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speak Posted Feb 14, 2013 19:15 UTC (Thu) by Serge (guest, #84957) [Link]
> It's definitely not "better in every aspect".
Maybe. :) But it's not that obvious.
> DirectFB is a very lightweight X-server look-alike moved into the kernel.
It does not require kernel patches. It only builds a fusion kernel module for fast IPC. And it's much farther from X-server than Wayland.
> It has no real support for running OpenGL applications
DirectFBGL? You can see some 3D-looking samples in http://ilixi.org/ video.
> and can only do simple compositions.
Weston can also do simple compositions. It's up to the compositor, I guess.
Wayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speak Posted Feb 14, 2013 19:25 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I had been watching DirectFB development very close back in early 2000-s. As far as I remember:
1) It uses Linux FB support for modesetting. So no multiple monitors, rotation, etc. 2) It has its own input stack. 3) It required custom kernel modules and direct hardware access from the userspace (ugh).
I don't remember it ever trying to support OpenGL, but I guess that blitting from a texture to framebuffer is not that complex to add if you have a working EGL.
In short, DirectFB is more like a classic framebuffer with several hardware accelerated operations. It's not nearly enough for modern graphics.
Wayland the "successor" LCA: The X-men speak Posted Feb 14, 2013 15:14 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
> Why people always talk about Wayland as an alternative to X and never mention DirectFB?
Probably because DirectFB's documentations and introductory materials suck so much that I've never been able to understand how it works (I'm probably not the only one considering that all the discussions about DirectFB I've seen are "it works like this, no it works like that, no, etc").
> DirectFB people never attempted taking the place of X.Org. They could, just never tried.
You don't get to be successful by not trying.
|
|||||||||||||