nanogui: a question about flnx on framebuffer
Subject:
Re: Re: a question about flnx on framebuffer
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
1 May 2001 14:49:03 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10105011524450.1654-100000@hyperspace.linuxhacker.org>
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> The only thing we *do* need to write Microwindows drivers are for touch
> screens that do not obey a standard format.
Since the current method does work, I'll admit that we certainly don't
_need_ to do it a better way, but I believe that a small set of native
drivers (with each driver configurable at build time) would be a smaller
and cleaner solution than running one mouse driver on top of another
mouse driver that runs as a seperate process.
> Now there are some functions on some mice that GPM doesn't support. But then
> we should ask ourselves - why do *we* need them if GPM doesn't?
A console mode text selection system doesn't have much use for a window
scrolling wheel, but in a windowing system it is quite useful. It probably
wouldn't have much use for the extra buttons you find on some mice because
it only has a limited number of functions (select and paste basically),
but in a windowing system they can easily be bound to special features
within particular applications. I doubt it has much need to know how hard
you are pressing the pen down when you select an area of text either, but
a painting program in a windowing system can use that information to
decide how hard to apply a drawing tool. It would probably be pointless to
feed information back to the (force feedback enabled) mouse about the
"texture" of the text that you are selecting on the console, but in a
windowing system... Actually, scratch that last one- it probably isn't a
very useful feature in a windowing system either, but the mice are
available and I'm sure somebody will want to support them sooner or later.
--
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
http://www.robogeeks.org/
