Fba2x

[Zarneth]

I'm asking an honest question. People were being unclear for what they wanted X11. Some people are talking like they want a fullblown desktop environment, and then others talking about completely different stuff. I'm trying to get a consensus on if everyone is even talking about the same thing.
The reason for having X11 is because it's THE absolute minimum requirement for existing GUI programs in Linux. It will mean we can easily take existing Debian ARM packages for MANY different programs and run them. It also means we can have task switching between unrelated applications.

Firefox3, Pidgin, XMMS, Thunderbird and thousands of other programs. Yes many of them are a bit on the large side. But many will still run fine and will be good alternatives till we get some decent programs written for the Pandora. You don't even need to load a window manager until you want to run these kind of apps.

No doubt some developers (such as myself assuming there's decent python support) would much rather just use GTK instead of coding a complete total interface from scratch too.

If you're only running/making games you probably wouldn't care much. But many of us want to use it as a UMPC even more so than for games. It does have a keyboard, and decent resolution touch screen after all.
X11 should hardly get in the way of games. A few extra lines of code at most to switch full screen (or make a full screen size borderless window) Might even make it easier to port existing linux games, they'd already be set up to work from X11.

 

[ldesnogu]

The reason for having X11 is because it's THE absolute minimum requirement for existing GUI programs in Linux.

Really? Did you take a look at Qt for embedded platforms?
I am ready to bet there are some GTK derivatives that don't require X either.

Note, it does not mean we shouldn't have X on Pandora for other good reasons you mentionned

 

[Zarneth]

The reason for having X11 is because it's THE absolute minimum requirement for existing GUI programs in Linux.
Really? Did you take a look at Qt for embedded platforms?
I am ready to bet there are some GTK derivatives that don't require X either.

Note, it does not mean we shouldn't have X on Pandora for other good reasons you mentioned
Gtk derivatives.... does this mean we'll have to do some hacking/recompiling to get the programs to run? or can you just drop in exisiting apps. Whereas with X any linux power user who knows how to sort out dependencies can load programs.

Don't forget there's compact Xservers too such as tinyx or smallx that use only 4mb ram or less. Sounds like they're compatible replacements for xfree86/xorg from what I've read. An Xserver is just a universal shell which allows you to drop in your own window manager, menu, desktop or nothing at all, allowing for VERY easy customization while maintaining compatibility.

I'm worried if everything isn't designed to start from the x-server then we'll get games made that won't start nicely from an x-server based menu/desktop system. Which means I'll have to run X for my apps. then quit X and run a separate menu program for half the games. Potential for a lot of mess there.

We really need a separate thread for this x-server stuff.

 

[efegea]

I'll be very worried if my thought if true: people are developing a linux device but they know nothing about linux It will be very silly to sell a pandora not based on X11. Yes it is possible to do, GP2X already did that, but the devices are different, also the power of them, and also the promises made..

- OpenGL on framebuffer?
- X11 makes very easy to access the hardware, much more easy than well, raw access to the hardware. It's obvious.
- A lot of GP2X and from other platforms games can be easily ported as there is SDL for X11. And it uses hardware acceleration by default. Well by default only if X11 server has hardware acceleration and don't know if SDL must be also modified for the omap or it uses X11 hardware acceleration by default..
- Makes switching between applications much more easy. And we can have more than one application running at same time.
- We really need to run on framebuffer? The little performance difference (if any) is really worth it? We have a very powerfull processor. And OpenGL based emulators are fatest than raw X11/framebuffer ones, and also can scale withouth any performance hit. And with pixel shaders we'll can do different kinds of scaling.
- With X11 we can run already existing debian ARM applications
- With X11 we can run ported linux GUI applications
-There are X11 implementations than only use 4mb ram or less, as Zarneth said and are designed for performance and hardware acceleration. Like kdrive.
- I don't want a desktop envoriment. Perhaps a window manager but not the kind of wm you are thinking. Look at the "pandora interface" thread, my first post on that thread, the screen with the ridge racer at the background. I don't want windowed apps, I want fullscreen apps but which can be switched and closed via a window manager.
- With framebuffer apps we lose all the mentioned features, so I don't like any framebuffer at all. I want X11 by default and all the applications and games and emulators written for it.
- It also helps for portability to the majority of linux based devices. Not for that..ehm..that weird thing called GP2X, but well... :lol:
-If neccesary, we can kill X11 and run an specific emulator. But I can't see the need for it...

I'm sure I'm forgotten a lot of things, but nobody will listen me..so..

 

[Zarneth]

I'll be very worried if my thought if true: people are developing a linux device but they know nothing about linux It will be very silly to sell a pandora not based on X11. Yes it is possible to do, GP2X already did that, but the devices are different, also the power of them, and also the promises made............
I wouldn't say the dev's no nothing about linux. More so we just don't know the dev's (craigx and co) point of view on the matter at all. Which is why I worry so much. :unsure: (do we know the dev's opinion? Have they mentioned it?)

I thought of making a poll, but left it for the moment as it just seems too desperate. Like the people wanting a slide out keyboard. XP

Very good point on openGL on a framebuffer though. I'd be REALLY surprised if this both works and is commonly supported.

 

[efegea]

I'll be very worried if my thought if true: people are developing a linux device but they know nothing about linux It will be very silly to sell a pandora not based on X11. Yes it is possible to do, GP2X already did that, but the devices are different, also the power of them, and also the promises made............
I wouldn't say the dev's no nothing about linux. More so we just don't know the dev's (craigx and co) point of view on the matter at all. Which is why I worry so much. :unsure: (do we know the dev's opinion? Have they mentioned it?)

I thought of making a poll, but left it for the moment as it just seems too desperate. Like the people wanting a slide out keyboard. XP

Very good point on openGL on a framebuffer though. I'd be REALLY surprised if this both works and is commonly supported.

I haven't said dev's dont know about linux, I have said I'll ve worried if dev's don't know about linux.

Is not the same.

 

[ldesnogu]

- OpenGL on framebuffer?
[...]
- We really need to run on framebuffer? The little performance difference (if any) is really worth it? We have a very powerfull processor. And OpenGL based emulators are fatest than raw X11/framebuffer ones, and also can scale withouth any performance hit. And with pixel shaders we'll can do different kinds of scaling.

You are making the assumption that the Imagination OpenGL ES driver will have GLX support.

 

[efegea]

You are making the assumption that the Imagination OpenGL ES driver will have GLX support.

That's more feasible than having framebuffer opengl support, isn't it?

 

[ldesnogu]

You are making the assumption that the Imagination OpenGL ES driver will have GLX support.

That's more feasible than having framebuffer opengl support, isn't it?

Why would it be more feasible?

Anyway I have downloaded Imagination ARM ES 1.1 dev kit (there's no native ES 2.0 dev kit...) and it contains both X11 and non-X11 versions of the demos

 

[Squidge]

You are making the assumption that the Imagination OpenGL ES driver will have GLX support.

That's more feasible than having framebuffer opengl support, isn't it?


So what will you do if you find out the OGL hardware driver only supports frame buffer?

 

[efegea]

So what will you do if you find out the OGL hardware driver only supports frame buffer?

Assuming that I was wrong?

(don't know if it's correctly spelled)

 

[Squidge]

So what will you do if you find out the OGL hardware driver only supports frame buffer?

Assuming that I was wrong?

(don't know if it's correctly spelled)


It's correctly spelled, but makes no sense.

Do you mean "assume" ?

 

[efegea]

It's correctly spelled, but makes no sense.

Do you mean "assume" ?

Perhaps, I don't know :huh:

I must assume that I was wrong.

 

[Squidge]

I must assume that I was wrong.

No no no.

There's no fact in my message - I don't have any OGL drivers so can't say how or what they will support.

So you would assume you were wrong if you found out the OGL hardware driver only supported frame buffer.

There's no "must assume".

I've just had a few PM's about it now too. Why do so many people assume whatever I write is gospel? Sometimes I'm just wondering like the rest of you! I really don't know that much about Pandora - that's between Craigix, MWeston and the rest of the main gang. I just hear info every now and again (and sometimes have hardware thrown at me )

 

[efegea]

Well you said that it didn't make sense and that I perhaps meant "assume" so I corrected it :lol:

I didn't assume it was a fact, because you did say "if"- "if you find out the OGL drivers ....."

Althought yes, people and me included, consider whatever you say is true, because you have a dev board and you are very close to the device developers (craigix MWeston and so), and because you are a GP guru :lol:

 

[Squidge]

B)

 

[Xmas]

The standard native platform graphics interface for OpenGL ES is EGL. As far as I know GLX, on which the design of EGL was based, does not support the creation of OpenGL ES contexts.

 

[Zarneth]

QUOTE
So what will you do if you find out the OGL hardware driver only supports frame buffer?
I think I'll make a pointless poll demanding for something that isn't possible while threatening to commit suicide (somehow involving a gp2x) but eventually I'll give up get on with my life.

The standard native platform graphics interface for OpenGL ES is EGL. As far as I know GLX, on which the design of EGL was based, does not support the creation of OpenGL ES contexts.
Not sure if that answered the queston or not, I don't have a computer science degree, however that page you linked mentioned:
QUOTE
EGL can be implemented on multiple operating systems (such as Symbian, embedded Linux, Unix, and Windows) and native window systems (such as X and Microsoft Windows).
So by the sounds of it we're fine for X11 then at least?

 

[javaJake]

Ugh. Just ugh. I know what X11 is, but other than Coder_TimT, I didn't get any direct answers as to why people wanted it. God Ginrai, you just said what some people supposedly wanted and then argued with my thoughts that the screen would be too small for a window manager (which doesn't really matter either way, I'm trying to figure out people's opinions). And then Ravnos started harping on my albeit unsubstantiated opinions without explaining what he wanted either.

The point of X is you get to choose what you want. If you want a super-minimal tab (not windows!) based interface, X will support it. If you want GNOME+Compiz, X will support it. It's up to the user to decide.

I think Craigix should provide a minimal, but functional, interface. It should provide window support (file managers, etc.) but you shouldn't have to browse through menus to get to your more commonly used applications or whatever.