From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (970321.SGI.8.8.5/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id SAA118086; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) id SAA01433 for linux-list; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:24:21 -0700 Received: from sgi.sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA01324; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:23:58 -0700 Received: from informatik.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.4.1]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/970507) via ESMTP id SAA05100; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:23:52 -0700 env-from (ralf@informatik.uni-koblenz.de) Received: from thoma (ralf@thoma.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.4.61]) by informatik.uni-koblenz.de (8.8.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA28961; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 03:23:39 +0200 (MEST) From: Ralf Baechle Message-Id: <199708090123.DAA28961@informatik.uni-koblenz.de> Received: by thoma (SMI-8.6/KO-2.0) id DAA16102; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 03:23:36 +0200 Subject: Re: Linux GGI and Linux/SGI To: jwiede@blammo.engr.sgi.com (John Wiederhirn) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 03:23:35 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <9708081540.ZM26801@blammo.engr.sgi.com> from "John Wiederhirn" at Aug 8, 97 03:40:30 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk > > Well, we have discussed using GGI. Last I checkend GGI was still itself > > in a state of flux and the last thing I want to do is to open another > > battle field. Technical reasons against GGI was mostly that the original > > design was very bloated as far as the kernel is affected. This has > > been improoved somwhat since. > > I'm not so attached to the notion of GGI as much as for gfx > having an in-kernel-space presence in Linux (Linux/SGI is > going to need this, as I suspect is any Linux that attempts > hardware acceleration of OpenGL or other similar APIs). Miguel "Da Newport Man" de Icaza is working on the required kernel stuff. Since a real native GFX support is a fairly big project currently the emulation stuff needed for the SGI X server has priority. Ralf From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Ralf Baechle Message-ID: <199708090123.DAA28961@informatik.uni-koblenz.de> Subject: Re: Linux GGI and Linux/SGI Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 03:23:35 +0200 (MET DST) In-Reply-To: <9708081540.ZM26801@blammo.engr.sgi.com> from "John Wiederhirn" at Aug 8, 97 03:40:30 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com To: John Wiederhirn Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: <19970809012335.eVfH2DLckRozoMu8YlO-u2dm16jE0yxazx3oPcmRVQc@z> > > Well, we have discussed using GGI. Last I checkend GGI was still itself > > in a state of flux and the last thing I want to do is to open another > > battle field. Technical reasons against GGI was mostly that the original > > design was very bloated as far as the kernel is affected. This has > > been improoved somwhat since. > > I'm not so attached to the notion of GGI as much as for gfx > having an in-kernel-space presence in Linux (Linux/SGI is > going to need this, as I suspect is any Linux that attempts > hardware acceleration of OpenGL or other similar APIs). Miguel "Da Newport Man" de Icaza is working on the required kernel stuff. Since a real native GFX support is a fairly big project currently the emulation stuff needed for the SGI X server has priority. Ralf