Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Feb 2006 12:22 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Permalink for comment 97804
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-03
I don't think he misread you.
If AIGLX is better at any term at all, it should be in the short term, as it only patches in some 3D effects into a 2D environment, without disturbing much the current X code.
XGL(XEGL) is a more ambitious solution which aims to map all of the 2D environment over GL(EGL) and needs a much bigger overhaul of the X code.
Or that is the idea I have got out of that extremely indigestible acronym soup -- X XORG XF86 XGL XEGL GLX GL EGL DRI DRM XAA EXA AIGLX Cairo Mesa XDamage XComposite XRender ...