Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19
DirectFB
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: DirectFB

  1. #1

    DirectFB

    http://www.directfb.org/

    Anyone tried it? Specifically the X server. There's talk that someday this could replace X11. I'm not so sure how I feel about that one (the closer the gui is to the kernel, the closer linux comes to making the same blunder that MS did with Win95. Took them six years to get the damn thing stable...how long will it take the community?).
    Anyway this is just a general discussion post. Has anyone tried it? Anyone using it? What works/what doesn't? I looked for information but there's nothing really in-depth out there. I'd appreciate someone telling me exactly what it is and can/can't do, cause I'm quite intrigued.

  2. #2

    Re:DirectFB

    That would be cool if it replaced X11 but if it took them six years to make it stable, then you have to wonder if its really gonna be that good or not. If The HURD can use it then there could be a big change for the Gnu operating system.

  3. #3

    Re:DirectFB

    Myself, I'm hoping it catches on. If someone would port QT to it then I'd be there. X11 is so bloated, and the main reason for any crashes on my box. If they can guarantee stability at the kernel level (should already be there...I believe all it uses is the linux framebuffer and I haven't heard any complaints about that) then it becomes a serious X competitor.

  4. #4

    Re:DirectFB

    [quote author=Tyr_7BE link=board=2;threadid=4368;start=0#43505 date=1027880605]
    X11 is so bloated, and the main reason for any crashes on my box. If they can guarantee stability at the kernel level (should already be there...I believe all it uses is the linux framebuffer and I haven't heard any complaints about that) then it becomes a serious X competitor.
    [/quote]

    I don't know if I'd want X or an X clone working at the kernel level. If my kernel ballooned to over 10 megs in size, I would not be happy.

    As it is, X loads up just as quickly for me as the Windows GUI, and I don't have a lot to complain about there. I also have never had any crashes in X (but that's because I used the version that was available in Debian Woody, which is coincidentally very stable).

    The only thing that I would really like is a way to make X or a clone use anti-aliasing and blending for all of my wm's and programs.

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Good Guru
    Schotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    5,760

    Re:DirectFB

    Which version of X are you using? There is XFree86 and X11. Both are free. Both are open source. I usually just am too damn lazy to install X11, because XFree86 suits me fine (and I dont feel like compiling new shit half the time).

  6. #6
    Guest

    Re:DirectFB

    i always thought X11 and Xfree86 were the same projects

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Good Guru
    Schotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    5,760

    Re:DirectFB

    Nah, I thought so originally as well. However there is the X11.org (I think) and then Xfree86, which are different. Although compatible. Essentially it is a different implementation of the same end results.

  8. #8

    Re:DirectFB

    To the best of my knowledge, X11 is the original, developed at Berkely I believe in the 70's. It was released under the BSD license, and as such was being ripped off left right and center. XFree86 is a free implementation of X11, released under the GPL to ensure it STAYS free. Of course, since it was forked approximately 10 years ago (I believe), a lot has been added; it's to the point where it's become a similar project but no longer the same. This is all stuff I'm pulling out of the back of my memory. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    But RE: DirectFB. People complain all the time that XF86 is too bloated (and I agree). Plus this crap with an X server really isn't designed for the single user experience. DFB seems to reside on a much lower level without that intermediate server, implying lighting speed. Imagine: no more X crashes, fully-optimized hardware acceleration, and all the features of XF86. Give it a few years and hopefully we'll see it take strides to the point that it's an X replacement.

  9. #9
    Guest

    Re:DirectFB

    XFree86 isn't under the GPL but the MIT X11 license AFAIK

  10. #10
    Moderator
    Good Guru
    Schotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    5,760

    Re:DirectFB

    LC : I would have to check to be sure, but you seem to be right on the mark.

    Tyr: Yup, thats pretty much the diff. I have used both.

    I cant say one is better than the other. They are both very good for any of my systems at least.

Similar Threads

  1. Problem with initializing DirectFB by Links
    By eugrus in forum Linux - Software, Applications & Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2005, 05:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •