View Poll Results: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution to 3D effects on the desktop do you think is best?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Xgl is best!

    22 29.33%
  • AIGLX is best!

    38 50.67%
  • What's this you're talking about?

    15 20.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Beans
    55
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Question Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    I have just been reading my copy of Linux Format and it had a couple of articles which talked about Xgl on it.

    They also mentioned AIGLX as an alternative (a competing one) and I was wondering which solution Ubuntu users and developers thought was best?


    Personally, I think Xgl takes it by a mile, though I have heard that AIGLX is a much more incremental step up (rather than a leap), for me at the moment Xgl seems almost ready fly. Granted it is running nested in an ordinary xerver, but that doesn't change the fact that it is stable enough to use, fast, I can watch movies, and works with a quite large range of graphics cards.

    So anyway, enough of what I think, what do you think AIGLX or Xgl, which is the best option?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In the land of OZ
    Beans
    247

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    As of right now XGL simply because it is in a much more advanced state of development and both ATI and Nvidia supports it. I could change my mind when Nvidia adds support for AIGLX.
    Manually installing software and setting up your system is always preferable. However, there is not one thing wrong with using Automatix for getting it done the easy way. Get Automatix2 Support Here

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Beans
    4,368
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    apparently, AIGLX is more for those with nvidia cards whereas xgl is largely graphic card independent. i seem to remember nVidia mentioning something about they are much more in favour of AIGXL. AIGLX is more of a plugin to xorg whereas XGL is more integrated.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Under the Jolly Roger
    Beans
    571

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    I'm not familiar with AIGLX, since I don't use (and won't touch) Fedora. I've used Xgl for the last three weeks, however, and am pleased with it thus far.
    My sole duty is to my own happiness and well-being. I recognize no other.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In the land of OZ
    Beans
    247

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    Quote Originally Posted by ComplexNumber
    apparently, AIGLX is more for those with nvidia cards whereas xgl is largely graphic card independent. i seem to remember nVidia mentioning something about they are much more in favour of AIGXL. AIGLX is more of a plugin to xorg whereas XGL is more integrated.
    Nvidia has failed to supply that support thus far. Maybe they will include it in the next version of the drivers. Intel chipsets work better with AIGLX.
    Manually installing software and setting up your system is always preferable. However, there is not one thing wrong with using Automatix for getting it done the easy way. Get Automatix2 Support Here

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Beans
    4,368
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    Quote Originally Posted by mstlyevil
    Nvidia has failed to supply that support thus far. Maybe they will include it in the next version of the drivers. Intel chipsets work better with AIGLX.
    thats very true - they have failed to thus far. apparently, they're waiting until AIGXL reaches a certain level of completeness.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Beans
    70
    Distro
    Dapper Drake Testing/

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    I'm sorry, you are factually incorrect and uninformed on the topic.

    It's not a competition, both solutions work together towards a solution that will work in all cases.

    AIGLX is work that we need even if the unlikely scenerio that XGL works 100%, and it's a much more evolutionary approach to the problem. Now AIGLX is already in the X tree and it should be ready for 7.1.
    Last edited by Lovechild; April 12th, 2006 at 09:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Beans
    2,434

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    Quote Originally Posted by jarocooke
    They also mentioned AIGLX as an alternative (a competing one) and I was wondering which solution Ubuntu users and developers thought was best?

    So anyway, enough of what I think, what do you think AIGLX or Xgl, which is the best option?
    Its not really a competition. I picked the third option, because of this fact.

    XGL allows for development on an OpenGL Linux desktop to happen NOW. Not months or years later. Now. So that means that work on OpenGL effects can go on and we can figure out what is needed to be done to have a non render accerated composited desktop.

    But make no mistake. XGL is a "bandaid" solution. Or as I have called it- a kludge. Don't get me wrong, its a great kludge. But its not something that is a final solution.

    AIGLX is a little closer to a final solution, and some would say it is one. I personally don't believe that it will be the "way that a stable OpenGL composited desktop gets shipped by default in the major Linux distros" but thats because I don't believe in ATI. I don't see them supporting the extensions needed for AIGLX (and the hard work needed to get composite and Opengl to work well together) for a long time in their closed driver. I don't see the switch being left on. One advantage of XGL is it gets ATI's support without asking- any long term solution that does not work on modern ATI hardware will end up as a dead end. But AIGLX is more of a solution than XGL (as its not a kludge) and will lead to the final solution.

    What is the final solution? Some future Xserver that incorporates the advantages of both approaches. Some call this Xegl, but what has been done on a Xegl server up until this point might not be used. Instead I'll just call it what it is- lots of future hard work. But each approach (XGL and AIGLX) brings something to the table not there otherwise.

    Personally I LOVE XGL now to the point I defend it (in often a stupid manor). Why? Because I'm sick of waiting for the frameworks and whatever to settle before I can have an OpenGL composited desktop. I wanted such a desktop two years ago when OSX showed it was possible. XGL allows for development of the stuff I actually care about (the compositors and effects) to go on while the boring stuff that has just been in my way until this point (the framework) keeps getting worked on. But I am not loyal to XGL till its death. Maybe Compiz, but not XGL. In fact, when the extensions that AIGLX needs gets into the Nvidia driver I will probably switch to get Twinview support back.

    The real questions are:

    What do you think are best- OpenGL compositors or Render Compositors? For me the answer is obvious.

    What solution do you think is best- developing the OpenGl effects in a seperate window manager (Compiz) or working them into a popular/already used window manager (Metacity)? Since I HATE the Metacity philosophy more than anything else in Linuxland I am glad that Compiz gives me this freedom from it, but some disagree.

    These sorts of things are the real questions. XGL vs. AIGLX don't compete directly, they help each other a lot and neither seems to be the perfect final solution.

    So just use which one works best for your hardware and get to what really matters THE EFFECTS!
    Last edited by poofyhairguy; April 12th, 2006 at 10:33 PM.
    Those folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
    - Mark Shuttleworth

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Beans
    2,434

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    Quote Originally Posted by poofyhairguy
    I personally don't believe that it will be the "way that a stable OpenGL composited desktop gets shipped by default in the major Linux distros" but thats because I don't believe in ATI. I don't see them supporting the extensions needed for AIGLX (and the hard work needed to get composite and Opengl to work well together) for a long time in their closed driver. One advantage of XGL is it gets ATI's support without asking- any long term solution that does not work on modern ATI hardware will end up as a dead end.
    I quoted myself here to clarify something- what I think the final solution will look like. I want this horrible speculation to be seperated from my other post, as this post is trash. Please don't read it if you are offended by stupidity.

    The problem with XGL is that its a hack. Its kinda clear to see its limitations.

    Yet AIGLX has a problem that is VERY hard to see- its optional. Fans of it like that you can "flip a gconf switch" to get effects. In some ways this is great because it allows for those who don't have supported hardware to just miss out, while those with can easily get involved in the fun. I see this as a major weekness though.

    ATI sucks. Really bad. Their newest line of cards has been out for a VERY long while with no Linux support what so ever. Up until now they have avoided supporting many major "optional" features of the Xserver like the composite extension. I see them as the problem with the optional AIGLX solution- the will decide FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS that it is a switch that does not need to be turned on. I can pretty much promise this will be the case.

    Here is where I agree with Jon Smirl- I think the final solution must break the Xserver. It must draw a line in the sand. It cannot be optional. Either you support this future Xserver, or you can't claim to support Linux. ATI- either you work 100% with a future AIGLX/XGL/Xegl or nothing will display in the screen at all. I don't see anything that is optional working in the long run.

    Of course this will take a while- this cannot happen until every open source driver is ready for the switch. That could take some time. But I can see a future where every driver works with this new age framework except the closed source ATI one (kinda like the situation in 2006 with render acceration) and the community is forced to break compatibility with the old Xserver to force ATI to play ball...

    I hate freaking ATI. I will never buy another ATI product again. If all graphics cards were Nvidia and Intel, we could just all switch to AIGLX next year and have a stable composited desktop by default before Vista has 5% market penetration. But because of ATI, I see a future where it might be some time before all the effects are turned on in the same way they are turned on in OSX.

    This is kinda fine with me, as I bought a Nvidia card just to avoid this problem. Yep- I bought a 6600 GT just for Linux eye candy. XGL and Compiz (more like Compiz's water pluggin) has made this purchase be worth at least four times what I paid for it. I recommend this to all people who have desktops and want this stuff. For laptops, I recommend getting one with an Intel card over an ATI card even if in Windowsland the ATI card is better. That way you can use one of the two solutions and have a modern desktop today......
    Those folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
    - Mark Shuttleworth

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Beans
    55
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: Xgl or AIGLX, which solution do you think is best?

    There are some really interesting pieces of information on this thread!!! I'm learning a lot.

    However I don't want people to think that I am trying to create a competition where none exists. There are however two approaches that could be taken, we could incrementally change the existing xserver or we could go for a big leap towards where we all want to be eventually, a desktop rendered out of OpenGL primitives.

    Now you'd think that the big jump would be the most buggy and difficult to use solution wouldn't you. To be honest I wouldn't know, because at the moment my well supported Nvidia card is a complete no go for AIGLX, which means I am not very happy with AIGLX to say the least. The day that Open Source software relies on other parties implementing something that doesn't already exist is the day that nothing happens with open source. So I think we might as well work on stabilising the solution that appears to be closest to fully usable at the moment.

    At least that is my feeling, but obviously I think that there will always, as is the nature of open source, be cross over between the two code bases.

    One thing's for sure the effects are what matters and I have them now and I find them really quite stable and usable, considering.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •