Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: byron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Byron A Jeff)
- Date: 14 Sep 2006 19:55:58 -0400
In article <45091C53.DE1CC96D@xxxxxxxxx>,
Herbert Kleebauer <klee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Nils O. Selåsdal" wrote:
Any particluar reason you wanted direct access to the framebuffer
and not use a standard approach ?
As I said, I'm completely new to Linux programming and know nothing
about the graphics subsystem in Linux.
Snippage...
As a result I
started this thread "Standard way of graphics in Linux", so the
statement in your question is wrong: I want to use the standard
approach and therefore asked about it.
There is no standard approach. There is no requirement that a Linux
installation have graphics capability at all.
Typically the way this is handled is by using a interface wrapper that
maps calls onto the correct underlaying subsystem.
Linux is about choice. So often there is more than one way to
accomplish something. So this often means that there may by no way to
get the 100% coverage you seek.
My suggestion is to write it in SDL then package it appropriately so
that different distributions can use it. That'll give you wide coverage.
BAJ
.
- References:
- Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: "Nils O. Selåsdal"
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Prev by Date: Re: Shared libraries worth it?
- Next by Date: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Previous by thread: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Next by thread: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
