nanogui: Re: NanoX version 0.5
Subject:
RE: NanoX version 0.5
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
18 May 1999 19:43:24 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905182028190.1124-100000@hyperspace>
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/ --------------------
