As many posts in this forum show, it seems like the Linux graphics architecture is still a source of trouble for most users.
An important issue specific to Linux is the co-existence of different, hardware-dependent graphics driver architectures at the same time on the same hardware.
The most important of them are the X Window System (X.org) and the various framebuffer console drivers (fbdev). There are, however, many more solutions to get Linux to display graphics, like KGI/GGI (seems dead now), libSVGA, commercial X-servers, ...
A unified, generic, UI-independent, but maximum-performance graphics architecture would eliminate a lot of problems currently discussed in this thread.
We request and encourage that NVIDIA take an active, leading role in the specification and implementation of such a graphics interface, because NVIDIA have already shown that they take Linux as a graphics platform seriously.
Joint efforts in the Open Source Communitiy and with commercial hardware ad software vendors can make this vision come true.
Vote for this petition right here!
Attached is a diagram showing a proposal for a graphics architecture that is both generic and performant while maintaining backwards compatibility with fbdev/fbcon from the applications perspective. It also tries to limit kernel-space implementations to a minimum.
To be a bit more specific about why and how I think it is necessary to rework the Linux graphics architecture:
- Currently, graphics on Linux is hard to maintain, configure, and develop applications against. Different hardware-dependent graphics layers inherently have interoperability issues which must be dealt with by hack solutions that limit stability and bind development resources better spent elsewhere. To switch from X11 to a framebuffer console now, for example, involves a complete change of state of the graphics hardware. This state has to be maintained, and many things just don't work reliably in this areas, resulting in screen lockups, X Server crashes, and declared incompatibility between fbdev drivers and X11.
- Compared to many other operating systems, Linux's graphics hardware driver architecture is not state-of-the-art. Now we have the opportunity to go past what others have at the moment and put Linux into a technological leader position in that area, too.
- The only fully-supported graphics system on Linux is X11 at the moment. High-performance-graphics are limited to that architecture. The X11 architecture, however, mixes hardware dependent drivers with user interface aspects. Users who do not need or want the UI stuff are still forced to maintain, configure, and install it in order to get good graphics performance.
- Alternative and generic graphics layers that exist either lack vendor support or are architecturally unsuitable as a high performance graphics interface. The KGI/GGI, for example, is pretty much dead today, and fbdev/fbcon is just a least-common-denominator solution originally developed as a text console driver for systems don't have a VGA text mode. No high-performance X11 server exists for use on top of any of the alternative graphics layers. We need an architecture backed by leading industry partners at a layer below X11.
- Applications like e.g. mplayer include their own drivers for a great number of graphics layers, because there is no guarantee that a specific graphics layer is available and working flawlessly on the target machine. We need a standardized solution that developers with linux as a target platform can depend on.
- The same goes for input devices, because the are also managed by e.g. an X server and maybe at the same time by GPM or some other application-specific driver.
- If you want to use more than one graphics layer at the same time, you must check the compatibility between them and configure both of them redundantly.
- While the Freedom of Choice between different graphics systems is definitely a Good Thing, we must keep in mind that application developers are having a hard time supporting all of those interfaces grown over time. Sometimes, in fact, less might be more. The past few years were a great experience for the linux community in the graphics area to see what graphics system would do best. This evolution is not finished yet, however, and a unified generic graphics driver with industry support is just a consequent step in the development of Linux.
- Every effort that isn't backed by leading graphics hardware players is doomed.
NVIDIA generic high-performance kernel interface wanted!
Re: NVIDIA generic high-performance kernel interface wanted!
. I see that at least GGI is still active today, but it seems that GGI has changed its targets from being a common low-level graphics library to a platform-independent, higher-level solution that itself makes use of other low-level driver systems, as well as running on top an an X server, while IMHO it just should be the other way round! Also, I miss direct support for technologies like OpenGL in the KGI/GGI approach, although concepts like the KGI "display list" interface are somewhat similar.
