nanogui@linuxhacker.org

> 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.


	I suggested this for the very reason that you thought it a good idea
to toss ReadPixel.  Maintaining multiple drivers for similar architectures is more
of a job than it seems.

Greg