Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:15:19 +0100 From: Nicolas Souchu <nsouch@free.fr> To: Alexander@Leidinger.net Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newbusifying kbd? Message-ID: <20030122091519.B6700@armor.fastether> In-Reply-To: <3E2D173C.3040507@graphics.cs.uni-sb.de>; from netchild@graphics.cs.uni-sb.de on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:47:40AM %2B0100 References: <20030119225129.A6948@armor.fastether> <20030119233031.GA24377@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030120074638.A11055@armor.fastether> <20030120222027.GA597@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <3E2D173C.3040507@graphics.cs.uni-sb.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:47:40AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > [KGI] > > > I took a quick look at it. I'm not opposed to having graphics support > > in the kernel. The problem I think I see is that we probably have > > enough interest to make standard VGA work, but never really have the > > people or interest to keep up with the latest and greatest graphics > > engine. So, I think this would be useful only in a model where the > > graphics drivers are contributed and the X server makes use of it. > > So, if XFree86 changes to this model, then I see potential... > > Chicken and egg problem... as far as I remember (I looked at it looong > ago) they have a X server too... or at least they want to provide one. KGI provides a X server accelerated (PhoneiX) implementation not based on X. On the other hand GGI (http://www.ggi-project.org), the user library going with KGI does provide XFree86 (called XGGI) running) on top of the KGI driver framework without its own drivers. Nicholas -- Nicholas Souchu - nsouch@free.fr - nsouch@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030122091519.B6700>