nanogui@linuxhacker.org

On Tue, 18 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> 	I'm thinking about the idea of taking the original bogl stuff for
> all the different framebuffer devices, and making a single nanoX framebuffer
> driver from them.  Then people can add various smaller features for their
> particular framebuffer without starting from scratch...  What do you think?

I don't see why. It's simpler and easier to have a different driver for
each type of frame buffer, and it's better to be able to only compile in
the one that you need.

> 	No, because the nanoX driver encapsulates all the needed functionality
> for all the (currently mini-x) programs above it, by writing one
> driver, you can port all your neat programs to another operating system.

Running a Nano-X server on top of a PDA GUI?

> 	I personally feel that, Vidar's comments aside, nano-X on linux
> isn't that interesting because linux already has X, which is a lot more

People with Linux based palmtops and embedded systems with only a few megs
of flash, but need the networking capabilities of Linux and a user
friendly graphical interface might disagree with you.

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------