Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Feb 2006 12:22 UTC, submitted by Rahul
X11, Window Managers Updated: Fedora was right in the middle of announcing all this properly, so here is the updated item containing the official names. Videos included, as well as the inevitable 'Why not Xgl?'. "AIGLX is a project that aims to enable GL-accelerated effects on a standard desktop. We have a lightly modified X server (that includes a couple of extensions), an updated Mesa package that adds some new protocol support and a version of metacity with a composite manager. The end result is that you can use GL effects on your desktop with very few changes, the ability to turn it on and off at will, and you don't have to replace your X server in the process." This is part of Fedora's Rendering Project, and instructions on how to install all this are available too.
Thread beginning with comment 97681
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why don't.....
by poofyhairguy on Mon 20th Feb 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "Why don't....."
poofyhairguy
Member since:
2005-07-14


One of the main differences that I see in Bling is that they seem to have font rendering in mind as well as eyecandy and compositing. They are using Pango to help composite and draw the fonts as well. Thinking of text not just 3D effects. As far as I know Compiz or Xgl doesn't take this in account. If I am wrong please let me know.


Most of the font work is done on the Cairo end of things, and David (the creator of XGL) made glitz which is used to accerate Cairo.

So technically XGL will work smoothly what is already done. This is better than Redhat's approach which is to make a new framework and talk about it a lot in hopes that others will extend it for them...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why don't.....
by Pfeifer on Mon 20th Feb 2006 23:23 in reply to "RE: Why don't....."
Pfeifer Member since:
2006-02-20

Well, actually it's the other way round: AIGLX uses the existing pieces and implements accelerated 3D with them. (The problem lies within the drivers, which have to be adapted to this chances.)

GLX however requires a completly new xserver. In other ways; to throw away the complete Xorg codebase and start anew.

And you may know (or not): GLX still requires a host XServer. It is not a complete XServer itself. It's a hack.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Why don't.....
by poofyhairguy on Mon 20th Feb 2006 23:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Why don't....."
poofyhairguy Member since:
2005-07-14


GLX however requires a completly new xserver. In other ways; to throw away the complete Xorg codebase and start anew.


Not true. XGL extends the old Xserver. Xegl replaces it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Why don't.....
by rayiner on Mon 20th Feb 2006 23:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Why don't....."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, both reuse the current XServer. And XGL isn't a hack --- it simply uses the current X server for GL because no standalone OpenGL stack is yet available on Linux. DRI-EGL will fix that, but it'll take a while to get it working.

My two bits: AIGLX simply perpetuates the idea that any significant chanegs to X will cause the world to end. That's quite a sad attitude, really. XGL is The Right Way (TM) to handle extending X11 into an 3D accelerated world. However, it also require major changes to the driver infrastructure which, frankly, are necessary anyway. Both Microsoft and Apple have decided to bite the bullet and overhaul the GL stack so the higher level software can do the right thing, and it'd be a shame if X cut corners in this regard. It also illustrates very well the "let's extend EXA a little bit more" slippery slope that John Smirl warned about.

Edited 2006-02-20 23:29

Reply Parent Score: 2