Re: Obsoleteness of X concept


Temoto wrote:

Same picture is for input devices like keyboard, mouse. What the hell
X is doing here? I can see either kernel drivers or X drivers are out
of adequate architecture. Am i wrong?

This is part 1 - why another hardware abstraction layer. Please,
comment here.
well i think its pretty obvious
1. the kernel-part driver is because not everyone wants to use X,
they just need to run httpd, or fsck (rescue disks) while still
providing a friendly user-interface (menus/framebuffer graphics).
2. the X servers exists because not all X servers supports all the
drivers.
Xgl may work with nvidia/frglx, but Xvesa is still lightweight
enough to be
used on most desktops, especially if a kernel-driver doesnt work.
3. the window manager pretty much a matter of taste, some like
KDE/Gnome are geared towards optimizing their targets (Qt/Gtk),
these cannot be "integrated" into Xserver because then the
applications
would depend on the hardware (or at minimum X-spesific-servers).


Second, we-use-network. Very fine that i don't need to provide an IP
stack, firewall to see movie and browser. It can be done through
sockets and is configured such way by default. Very good. But why
anyway? Why should it be possible to run X server on some other
machine than mine? Anyone is really using it? Isn't it like dead
concept along with mainframes? I have laptop with such an good graphic
card, it can really draw graphic so well. Dedicated X drawing server
is really out of business here. I have a strong opinion that this is a
common situation. I believe it could be like branch of Xorg or config
option that runs faster because it really relies only on local
hardware.

Why X should use network subsystem? Please, comment here.

this is a development thing actually, normally we can switch
between X and console but in rare cases where X doesnt release
its control over the terminal and hung, having it listens on a port
can be useful. this is common to all X servers, XVnc just extends
this to be a "remote desktop" feature.
I dont think this is spesific to linux, even windows have them.
Makes administrator's life alot easier than to dangerously sit in
front
of the server all day.

Third, how to think different. There is a framebuffer kernel video
driver. What is wrong with it for using it instead of X? I understand
that all apps relay on X. It's a matter of lots code changes, i
understand all. Just theoretically, is there something wrong? Maybe
some performance issues? Like limiting kernel time execution or
something... i believe this could have relatively simple solution.

I'm sorry for my bad English.
Well, part 1 oughta clear this last question. kernel-drivers are basic
bootstrap enough to get a framebuffer, the X-drivers has more gui-
intensive
operations (3D, multimonitor, multicards, that complex mandlebrot in
simple
commands). Its not meant as a limitation,
ok you can play video with a framebuffer device, but you cant get them
to play on a cube or stretch across 4 monitors, this requires
intensive hardware
support which not all of us required.
its separated so you can still have office-like desktops or friendly-
servers without
burdening your hardware to much, but still be able play 3d-games once
a while.
As for which part of the hardware belongs to the kernel fb or the X
driver, thats up
to standards i think, the X developers naturally have more knowledge
into how to
tweak the hardware more (i.e Xnvidia) than the generalized
framebuffer.

Ys
.

Relevant Pages
Loading