Thread: aiglx vs xgl
View Single Post
Old 11-16-06, 08:56 AM   #3
MacSlow
Registered User
 
MacSlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 76
Send a message via ICQ to MacSlow Send a message via AIM to MacSlow Send a message via MSN to MacSlow
Default Re: aiglx vs xgl

Not using GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is not very wise. This avoids sharing the memory used by a windows pixmap between X11 and GL, thus doubling memory-usage. That's the main motivation for developing this extension in the first place, to avoid this waste of video-memory. The people behind beryl don't always think thoroughly (due to lack of experience with X11?) about the stuff they do. They tend to prefer quick&dirty solutions in order to gain some questionable merits (e.g. hacking input-transformation into beryl without the proper X11-extension done by Keith Packard).

But not everything they do is bad (e.g. the animation- and blurfx-plugins are nice). Although I've to admit I know more negative than positive things.

Best regards...

MacSlow
__________________
First they ignore you...
then they laugh at you...
then they fight you...
then you win!
(Gandhi)
MacSlow is offline   Reply With Quote