Accelerated OpenGL without X, is it possible? (just checking)

[eekee]

Like the title says, I'm just wondering if it's possible to get accelerated opengl on Linux (presumably with the framebuffer) with an Nvidia graphics card without the X window system.

X is one of the major things keeping me away from Linux. It used to be tolerable, but since the last 3 releases, to phrase it as politely as I can, I'm not going near that pile of **** again.

[Dragoran]

Originally Posted by eekee

Like the title says, I'm just wondering if it's possible to get accelerated opengl on Linux (presumably with the framebuffer) with an Nvidia graphics card without the X window system.

No

Originally Posted by eekee

X is one of the major things keeping me away from Linux. It used to be tolerable, but since the last 3 releases, to phrase it as politely as I can, I'm not going near that pile of **** again.

[Sean_W]

What are you talking about? X.Org is much better than it was. It's the Desktop Environments that might not support X.Org's features or use them right.

[eekee]

Originally Posted by Dragoran

No

Well, that answered it. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Sean_W

What are you talking about? X.Org is much better than it was. It's the Desktop Environments that might not support X.Org's features or use them right.

Okay, you asked.

* Stability. Possibly not fair of me as it may have improved since I last used it, but the X server is a core system component, its stability is vital. On a desktop box it is as important as the kernel. I was not well pleased when X started to crash like I hadn't seen in years, just-about the time these "improvements" started coming in.

* hal and dbus. They both use XML. Dude, what? XML is monstrously and grotesquely inefficient. It's very inefficient for the computer to parse and far less readable for humans than many formats which were in use 20-30 years ago! How ridiculous! It's also rare for XML to inflate data size by less than 4 times and not unheard of for it to inflate data as much as 100 times beyond what's needed. Entirely apart from XML's issues there's DBUS itself, which I haven't looked at myself but I heard from someone who I trust to keep me from wasting my time: "sure DBUS does a useful job, but why would anyone do it that way?"

* libxcb. Back when I was helping out with a linux distro, the sparkling geniuses in charge of this project made an ABI-breaking change to the distributed source code without changing the version. Now in a "leaf node", a package nothing else depended on, such a change would be nuisance enough. When this mistake was made xlib already depended on libxcb. Recall what I said about the X server being as important as the kernel in desktop systems? By the same token, the X libraries are about as important as libc. This change meant more than half the system needed to be recompiled, and without a change in the version number no-one knew whether they had the old or the new libxcb! As far as I know they only made the mistake once; I got out of Linux distro work shortly after it happened, but even as one single mistake this was very very near unforgivable.

[Dragoran]

Originally Posted by eekee

* Stability. Possibly not fair of me as it may have improved since I last used it, but the X server is a core system component, its stability is vital. On a desktop box it is as important as the kernel. I was not well pleased when X started to crash like I hadn't seen in years, just-about the time these "improvements" started coming in.

* hal and dbus. They both use XML. Dude, what? XML is monstrously and grotesquely inefficient. It's very inefficient for the computer to parse and far less readable for humans than many formats which were in use 20-30 years ago! How ridiculous! It's also rare for XML to inflate data size by less than 4 times and not unheard of for it to inflate data as much as 100 times beyond what's needed. Entirely apart from XML's issues there's DBUS itself, which I haven't looked at myself but I heard from someone who I trust to keep me from wasting my time: "sure DBUS does a useful job, but why would anyone do it that way?"

.......

Isn't it kind of embarrassing to talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about?

Anyway this looks like trolling to me so I am out of this discussion.

[eekee]

Originally Posted by Dragoran

Isn't it kind of embarrassing to talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about?

Anyway this looks like trolling to me so I am out of this discussion.

Well I'm not the sort of person who can talk about something I hate without making snide comments so maybe I should stop now. In answer to your question, it's less embarrassing to my mind than accepting present-day software "technology" while watching it achieve so much less with so much more after all these years. The last 2 decades have been really bad ones for software progress, and I really think it's time to look harder at the weak excuses we make for the rubbish we use.

[JackieBrown]

Originally Posted by Dragoran

Isn't it kind of embarrassing to talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about?

Anyway this looks like trolling to me so I am out of this discussion.

Even his signature is a troll

[uOpt]

Since this thread isn't going anywhere anyway:

Xorg has turned very badly since 7.2, 7.3 or whereabouts for anybody who relies on what Unix did better than Windows in the first place. To me it looks like the developers are just being payed to do everything that Windows does and let everything else go down the dumpster. There seems to be no QA at all for options that aren't turned on a default configuration, as in not a single one.

The only thing saving our collective behinds here on nvnews is that the actual driver, the one fro NVidia, is very good and doesn't drop features at a high pace. That is why some of you here might feel X11 is going better. It's not, it's the NVidia driver.

[TPG]

Originally Posted by JackieBrown

Even his signature is a troll

Trolling is a art!

[adamk75]

Originally Posted by uOpt

Since this thread isn't going anywhere anyway:

Xorg has turned very badly since 7.2, 7.3 or whereabouts for anybody who relies on what Unix did better than Windows in the first place. To me it looks like the developers are just being payed to do everything that Windows does and let everything else go down the dumpster. There seems to be no QA at all for options that aren't turned on a default configuration, as in not a single one.

The only thing saving our collective behinds here on nvnews is that the actual driver, the one fro NVidia, is very good and doesn't drop features at a high pace. That is why some of you here might feel X11 is going better. It's not, it's the NVidia driver.

That's funny.. I don't touch the nvidia driver, and I strongly feel that Xorg is getting better.

What, exactly, do you mean by "anybody who relies on what Unix did better than Windows in the first place"? I barely even touch Windows, relying quite strong on the things Unix does best, and disagree that Xorg has turned badly since 7.2 or 7.3. So please don't generalize this to "anybody".

Adam

[Sean_W]

Originally Posted by eekee

Well, that answered it. Cheers.




Okay, you asked.

* Stability. Possibly not fair of me as it may have improved since I last used it, but the X server is a core system component, its stability is vital. On a desktop box it is as important as the kernel. I was not well pleased when X started to crash like I hadn't seen in years, just-about the time these "improvements" started coming in.

* hal and dbus. They both use XML. Dude, what? XML is monstrously and grotesquely inefficient. It's very inefficient for the computer to parse and far less readable for humans than many formats which were in use 20-30 years ago! How ridiculous! It's also rare for XML to inflate data size by less than 4 times and not unheard of for it to inflate data as much as 100 times beyond what's needed. Entirely apart from XML's issues there's DBUS itself, which I haven't looked at myself but I heard from someone who I trust to keep me from wasting my time: "sure DBUS does a useful job, but why would anyone do it that way?"

* libxcb. Back when I was helping out with a linux distro, the sparkling geniuses in charge of this project made an ABI-breaking change to the distributed source code without changing the version. Now in a "leaf node", a package nothing else depended on, such a change would be nuisance enough. When this mistake was made xlib already depended on libxcb. Recall what I said about the X server being as important as the kernel in desktop systems? By the same token, the X libraries are about as important as libc. This change meant more than half the system needed to be recompiled, and without a change in the version number no-one knew whether they had the old or the new libxcb! As far as I know they only made the mistake once; I got out of Linux distro work shortly after it happened, but even as one single mistake this was very very near unforgivable.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind. Why don't you go and make your own X system then or make it better? Better yet, go back to XFree86 and tell me it's not got better.

[DeiF]

I did a quick Google search and came up with DirectFBGL.
Also this thread on this same forum.