Linked by Anonymous Reader on Wed 21st Dec 2005 22:09 UTC
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?
Thread beginning with comment 77354
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The public XGL project.
by jonsmirl on Thu 22nd Dec 2005 23:33
in reply to "RE[2]: The public XGL project."
Member since:2005-07-06
jon: EXA and XGL have nothing to do with each other. the EXA author actually has and would like to continue to work on XGL, for that matter. please don't confuse this issue with your own personal axe grinding. thank you.
There are ten drivers in the mesa public CVS that need EGL support added and nobody is working on them. Finishing them ought to keep you busy until Novell does another release.
BTW, why can't Zach write his own messages?
Member since:
2005-07-06
jon: EXA and XGL have nothing to do with each other. the EXA author actually has and would like to continue to work on XGL, for that matter. please don't confuse this issue with your own personal axe grinding. thank you.