Ranting on the X protocol
Ranting on the X protocol
Posted Jun 4, 2010 13:59 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Ranting on the X protocol by rqosa
Parent article: Danjou: Thoughts and rambling on the X protocol
>Says who?
Me, obviously.
http://www.google.com/search?q=OpenVG
About 45,600 results (0.32 seconds)
Oh, and Google too.
>> It's already obsoleted by GL4
>And will ARM-based cell phones and netbooks be able to run OpenGL 4 with good performance?
In a few years - yep. There's nothing in GL4 which makes it intrinsically slow.
>Is there anything inherent in the X protocol that requires an X server to be single-threaded? I doubt it.
And who's going to rewrite X.org? And it matters if server is single-threaded (because of input latency, for example).
And old legacy code in X.org does have its effect. For example, it's not possible to have tiled frontbuffer - because all of the code in X.org has to be rewritten. And X.org is LARGE.
Posted Jun 4, 2010 20:12 UTC (Fri)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> About 45,600 results (0.32 seconds) How do those numbers prove anything? (Incidentally, a search for "Gallium3D" gives only "About 26,300 results".) Also, if OpenVG is useless, then why are Qt and Cairo both implementing it? > And who's going to rewrite X.org? It's being rewritten all the time. Just look at how much has changed since X11R6.7.0. > And it matters if server is single-threaded (because of input latency, for example). I don't remember ever seeing users complaining about the input latency of the current Xorg.
Posted Jun 5, 2010 18:25 UTC (Sat)
by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
[Link]
Ranting on the X protocol
For example, it's not possible to have tiled frontbuffer - because all of the code in X.org has to be rewritten. And X.org is LARGE.Ranting on the X protocol
This will probably come as a huge surprise to the >95% of desktop X users (all Intel, most AMD, all NVIDIA beyond G80) who have a tiled frontbuffer.