nanogui: NanoX version 0.3 released


Previous by date: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 Re: Toolkits, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 RE:, Greg Haerr
Previous in thread: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Vidar Hokstad
Next in thread: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Greg Haerr

Subject: RE: NanoX version 0.3 released
From: Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Date: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000
Message-Id: <01BE9BA9.294AD160.greg@censoft.com>

The multiple process access is a good point that I hadn't thought of.  Of course,
it would only happen if multple graphics servers were run, which I guess could happen.

On the int10 access, I'm writing that only for the ELKS port to get it off the ground
quickly, since that's the point of the BIOS: an unchanged api over differing hardware.

With nanoX v0.3, anybody can write any driver they choose, and nanoX will run with it...

BTW, direct hardware access still has the multiple process problem.

I would be very grateful if you or anyone else would like to donate some non-bios
direct access routines for some more modern graphics cards.  The problem is that
EGA cards only support 256 color with 320x200 thru a standard interface (BIOS)
or 16 color 640x480.  Nowadays, people want high resolution and high color.

Take a look at /usr/src/linux/drivers/video/atyfb.c (linux v2.2) or vesafb.c.  (BIOS).

It would be *really great* to tear out all that stuff into a nanoX driver!  Then I could
run nanoX standalone in 1024x768 mode!!

Greg

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 9:49 AM, Eric J. Korpela ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
> >	o MSDOS driver support.  I wrote a 640x480x16 color driver in about 45 minutes.
> >NanoX now runs on DOS!  (OK, I did this only to see how portable nanoX
> >is, and the 
> >mouse driver still isn't written)  This still uses MSC graphics library.
> >I'll have the bios
> >int10 version driver done shortly, which will allow nanoX to run on
> >ELKS!  We should
> >have an ELKS version shortly...   BTW, the nanoX kernel is around 20k on DOS...
> 
> Does anyone else agree with me that direct int 10 access is a mistake?
> Wouldn't access through a device driver be a bit more unixy?  It would
> be able to prevent multiple processes from trying to access int 10 services.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 

Previous by date: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 Re: Toolkits, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 RE:, Greg Haerr
Previous in thread: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Vidar Hokstad
Next in thread: 11 May 1999 18:31:38 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Greg Haerr


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.