Yes it would be nice if X.org could use OpenGL directly for it's display and composition, but to date, nobody has made this possible. Is it wrong for a business to make it so? Since when does developing software for GNU products mean that they aren't allowed to do it privately? If Novell is developing XGL behind closed doors, and paying the developers to build it... Where's the problem?
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:I don't want to insult or attack you in any way, but from following this whole developement from the outside I got the impression that you stoping work on XGL was about the only thing that happened because of EXA.
Other than that I saw post after post on the freedesktop mailinglist that pointed out that EXA is in no way a replacement for XGL, that it wasn't meant as competition to XGL and that XGL would still be the long term solution.
Member since:2005-07-06
It's a matter of direction and focus, or rather, a lack thereof. Developer resources focued on EXA represents developer resources diverted from XGL.* As people said, free software developers are perfectly free to choose their own priorities and work on what they desire, and if EXA is the priority, then so be it. By by extension, Novell is perfectly free to work on what it considers a priority, and if that's XGL, well, that's that.
*) Needlessly, as some would argue. I cannot remember who said it, but someone pointed out that for little more effort than it would take to properly accelerate RENDER, you could add the same level of acceleration to MESA instead. Personally, I think RENDER as a concept is flawed, because it merely postpones the transition to OpenGL as the primary API (what happens when somebody wants to texture a Cairo shape with a procedural shader?), but then again, IANAXD, so I'll keep my big mouth shut 
Edited 2005-12-21 23:53
Member since:
2005-07-06
The public XGL project blew up in August when the core X developers decided to pursue EXA. Whatever your views on EXA are, in the end result EXA is just a way to extend 2D performance a little farther.
I quit working on XGL at that time since it was obvious that most of the few public resources X has were going to chase EXA. Pursuing XGL without significant help is a three or four year project which I am unwilling to undertake.
While a lot of the X developers believe they work in a marketing vacuum the distributions understand that they are in a competitive market place. It is pretty obvious to me that not having an accelerated desktop when Windows and the Mac do is going to cause big problems for the Novell/Redhat sales people. The public project is dead so these distributions (and others, yes there are more secret projects out there) are pursuing XGL variations internally as a competitive edge.
The core X developers have chosen the EXA bed, now they have to live in it. The choice of EXA, whether intentional or not, had the side effect of killing the public XGL project. Now we have to live with the consequences.