nanogui: NanoX version 0.3 released


Previous by date: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Alex Holden
Next by date: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoGUI and X ??, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Alex Holden
Next in thread: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Alex Holden

Subject: Re: NanoX version 0.3 released
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Date: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905102236160.10753-100000@a.ncg.net>

On Mon, 10 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Mon, 10 May 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> > problems I had getting the framebuffer device up and running on my
> > machine (I've got a S3 Trio card... One of those that _doesn't_ work with
> 
> I have the same problem on my PC (Diamond Stealth); I use my NetWinder
> instead.

Hmm :) I have a Netwinder sitting here, didn't think about checking out
nano-X on it. Guess I just have to do it :)
 
> I'm not so convinced about Mozilla, personally. It seems such an ugly
> mess. If only the QNX browser was Open Source... For a set top box though,
> I suppose you would want a browser with all the latest features (CSS,
> etc.). 

Mozilla is actually getting there. M5 is actually more stable for me than
Navigator 4.51 is, in most cases now. Or at least Gecko, the layout
engine is. We'll probably ignore XUL and lots of other of the "high end"
features. But getting gecko up and running in 1-2MB of flash should
certainly be possible.

The good thing about Mozilla, is that there is widget rendering code for
the HTML form widgets included that use the same graphics and event
abstraction layer that the rest of the layout engine uses, so there's a
fairly small set of primitive drawing functions that must be modified to
work with NanoX, and the GDK implementation should be a good starting
point - the API isn't _that_ different.

>Using NanoGUI as well has the advantage that it should be much
> easier to adapt to anything you want than X, due to it's simplicity, plus
> the lower amount of flash it uses should save you quite a bit of money per
> box ;)

I know :) X was rejected _very_ early. We actually did a prototype based
on GGI, but then we'd still have to handle most of what nano-X do
ourselves, and libggi isn't that small either.

Some of the code for the prototype could be useful for nano-X, though -
I'll take a look at it. For instance, I wrote some font handling code that
use font files that are a lot smaller than nano-X's (at least as of 0.2,
haven't had the time to check out 0.3 yet).

Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Director of R&D, Screen Media AS



Previous by date: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Alex Holden
Next by date: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoGUI and X ??, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Alex Holden
Next in thread: 10 May 1999 20:48:49 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Alex Holden


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.