From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030360AbVIAUS0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:18:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030362AbVIAUS0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:18:26 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net ([63.240.76.49]:50646 "EHLO sccrmhc14.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030361AbVIAUSZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:18:25 -0400 Subject: Re: State of Linux graphics From: Jim Gettys Reply-To: jg@freedesktop.org To: Andreas Hauser Cc: lkml , Discuss issues related to the xorg tree In-Reply-To: <20050901163958.9589.qmail@paladin.fortunaty.net> References: <43171D33.9020802@tungstengraphics.com> <1125590374.9419.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901163958.9589.qmail@paladin.fortunaty.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:18:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1125605907.10488.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Not at all. We're pursuing two courses of action right now, that are not mutually exclusive. Jon Smirl's argument is that we can satisfy both needs simultaneously with a GL only strategy, and that doing two is counter productive, primarily on available resource grounds. My point is that I don't think the case has (yet) been made to put all eggs into that one basket, and that some of the arguments presented for that course of action don't hold together. - Jim On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 16:39 +0000, Andreas Hauser wrote: > jg wrote @ Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:59:33 -0400: > > > Legacy hardware and that being proposed/built for the developing world > > is tougher; we have code in hand for existing chips, and the price point > > is even well below cell phones on those devices. They don't have > > anything beyond basic blit and, miracles of miracles, alpha blending. > > These are built on one or two generation back fabs, again for cost. > > And as there are no carriers subsidizing the hardware cost, the real > > hardware cost has to be met, at very low price points. They don't come > > with the features Allen admires in the latest cell phone chips. > > So you suggest, that we, that have capable cards, which can be had for > < 50 Euro here, see that we find something better than X.org to run > on them because X.org is concentrating on < 10 Euro chips? > Somehow i always thought that older xfree86 trees were just fine for them. > > Andy