Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 27th Feb 2006 07:10 UTC, submitted by fsmdave
X11, Window Managers 3D graphics on X11: XGL vs AIGLX. This article delves into the inner workings of XGL and AIGLX. It shows that there are many similarities between these two competing/co-operating "rivals" and plenty of room for growth.
Thread beginning with comment 99725
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: XGL will win
by somebody on Mon 27th Feb 2006 17:43 UTC in reply to "XGL will win"
Member since:

XGL is going to come out on top in the end, becuase it is desktop agnostic.

Well,... you messed up completely. But only in term of what is agnostic here. Your comment is heading in right direction.

Separate the project and see why. What you know as XGL are actualy two projects (for now)
1. XGL is rendering server
2. compiz is WM and this is the part which is DE agnostic.

What you know as AIGLX is separated in 3 parts.
1. AIGLX, which has nothing to do with DE or agnostic. It is XOrg server extension which enables indirect rendering. It is rendering server only.
2. libCM. Composite manager library providing special effects. Again nothing with DE. If you look at XOrg mailing list, you can see possibility that XGL might use libCM in future too.
3. Modified metacity using the composite manager. And this one is really not agnostic.

Now, a little bit of speculation. If compiz starts to use libCM (davidr is looking at it, at least as he said in his e-mail). Where do you end up?

1. With server that works best for you. XGL, AIGLX or XeGL, EGL...
2. Common libCM, which enables different WM to share pluggable effects between them, but handled with previously picked server of your choice.
3. WM of your choice. And if compiz supports libCM in future, compiz is no problem here. Pick one that you like the best without loosing eye-candy.

In my opinion most of the people on
- linux will use AIGLX, libCM and compiz at the end. Metacity is too gnome specific (and I'm a gnome user).
- handhelds... people will use XeGL + libCM + (I don't know which works best there, but I suspect that metacity and compiz are to computer centric)
- other platforms? I don't know but XGL would probably fit there best, since it is the least dependant on XOrg. But again libCM and WM of your choice.

This is good and bad. It's good because companies like ATI and NVidia could almost write one driver to support windows,linux, cell phone OS's Game systems, ...etc, so the support across the board could rapidly increase.

Maybe, but you have to port XGL there first.

Most importantly, it's all platform independant so no longer would companies have to be asked if they could write a linux driver. They would be asked if they could write a driver that simply conforms to the Khronos OpenGL ES standards and the required extentions.

Yeah, it would be nice reality. Problem is that OGL is only one part of the drivers. OGL only resides on underlaying structure that connects to kernel and hardware different for each platform. So, you would still have to ask vendors to support linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2