Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Xgl, Xegl, Xglx, AIGLX, Compiz, Beryl......

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Beans
    31

    Xgl, Xegl, Xglx, AIGLX, Compiz, Beryl......

    Hi All,

    Just trying to do some reading about developments in X technology and came across a few 100 terms that confuse the hell out of me. I thought I would post here and see if anyone can clarify them for me.

    As far as I can tell AIGLX and Xgl are two different approaches at the same problem, hardware accelerated X servers.

    Xegl and Xglx are both early implimentations of the Xgl idea, but Xglx is being used while people wait for Xegl to be finished and still requires a running standard X server to work, whereas Xegl is a completely rewritten X server based on DRI and Direct Framebuffer (directfb) technology.

    AIGLX as far as I can tell is a project with identical goals to Xgl, but started from scratch because the Xgl design specs were created away from the community behind closed doors. AIGLX members felt that this introduced a bunch of problems in using it as the new standard and set out to create their own truly-open spec for Accelerated X Server.

    As far as I can tell Compiz and Beryl, at this stage, are very similar and provide window management and have sub-programs to handle decorations+effects.

    As far as I can tell both Xgl and AIGLX both require Binary Drivers to run properly (is this correct?).

    Code:
    (Xgl)
    
    Xglx --> Compiz / Beryl --> Window Decorations = Cool Graphics
    
    (AIGLX)
    
    AIGLX --> Compiz --> Window Decorations = Cool Graphics
    Now... is that right or have I got things all wrong? Just wanted to know this stuff for future reference. Also, what do people think of in general about replacing Xorg / XFree86? I personaly think that a custom written X Server with 3D Acceleration is a step in the right direction, if only to keep up with modern hardware. Also I think alot of cool features could come out of a accelerated desktop (things like Expose from Apple's OS X) to really improve usability.

    Thanks.

    -Timbobsteve

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Beans
    6,040

    Re: Xgl, Xegl, Xglx, AIGLX, Compiz, Beryl......

    As far as I can tell both Xgl and AIGLX both require Binary Drivers to run properly (is this correct?).
    Not necessarily; Intel provides open source drivers for their chips with the required support, for example.
    Now... is that right or have I got things all wrong?
    See the part titled "Stacking the blocks" in this article, which is a comprehensive insider's review of things going on.
    lAso, what do people think of in general about replacing Xorg / XFree86? I personaly think that a custom written X Server with 3D Acceleration is a step in the right direction, if only to keep up with modern hardware.
    I'm all for keeping the current X.org; a separate server has many disadvantages and little benefit, especially with hardware.
    Also I think alot of cool features could come out of a accelerated desktop (things like Expose from Apple's OS X) to really improve usability.
    Ditto, already happening with Beryl.
    Previously known as 23meg

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
  •