Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:32:36 -0500 (EST) | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: Linux Graphics Architecture (format fixed) |
| |
David Schleef writes: > On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 12:00:55AM -0500, Ben Bridgwater wrote: > >> Much more than that! :) I'm really looking for a complete solution. >> It's no good having your X server happily coexist with the >> framebuffer if the whole thing snarfs up when I run some game >> that directly accesses the graphics hardware. We need to provide >> an efficient low level device driver that even games writers will >> be happy to use. I think it would be a shame to put a lot of >> effort into an X-only solution. > > Will this "efficient low level device driver" work over a network as > well as X does?
Asking that is like asking if the parallel port driver provides network printing services.
> Given that gigabit ethernet is just around the corner, > bandwidth is _not_ a problem.
1600x1200x32x30 = 1.8 Gb/s = 2 point-to-point gigabit Ethernets
Gee, that sounds like a great way to spend your money. I'd like to see the beefy server that handles multiple clients. Hint: local CPU power is cheaper because you don't have to pay the premium of high-end server CPUs like the latest Xeon or 21264.
Ethernet was not designed to be a point-to-point graphics bus.
> I wouldn't like to see a situation > develop where game writers choose a limiting, non-standard interface > to get short-term performance increase. There already is a complete > solution. It's called X.
I'm sick of this paranoid fear. Games written to the GGI API will run in X just fine, assuming X can provide the needed performance.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |