To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
From the AIGLX wiki, this is not my understanding, AIGLX and XGL are said to be functionnaly equivalent.
When both are finished, they'll do the same thing, but the path to get there and the resulting architecture will be different.
What do you think XGL can do that AIGLX can't?
I might well be wrong, but I understand from the Fedora site that AIGLX's purpose is to make it easier to "use GL effects", while XGL tries to do accelerate all X graphics output via GL.
For instance, GTL+ talks to Cairo, and Cairo would talk to X via Render in AIGLX, with no 3D intervention, while it would directly output OpenGL calls via Glitz in XGL.
If this is true, both would allow funky accelerated window managers, but XGL would accelerate Gnome as well. Again, I might be wrong: this is all VERY confusing.




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 ...