It’s currently mostly DOS based so you need to do some work before you can
compile under Linux, see compile.txt. For 1.17 you probably need to apply ftp://utopia.knoware.nl/users/arne/d1x/117adb.zip too.
BTW Any plans for a svgalib interface in SDL? I can’t get my X server into
a 320x200 resolution
No plans for SVGAlib support, but the latest version of SDL (0.8e) will
emulate a 300x200 screen on fullscreen X11.
You’ll need to make a small change to the events file to make d1x work
with SDL 0.8e
I do plan to add either GGI or MGL support for fullscreen access …
probably Scitech MGL since it will support more video cards.
It’s currently mostly DOS based so you need to do some work before you can
compile under Linux, see compile.txt. For 1.17 you probably need to apply ftp://utopia.knoware.nl/users/arne/d1x/117adb.zip too.
BTW Any plans for a svgalib interface in SDL? I can’t get my X server into
a 320x200 resolution
No plans for SVGAlib support, but the latest version of SDL (0.8e) will
emulate a 300x200 screen on fullscreen X11.
You’ll need to make a small change to the events file to make d1x work
with SDL 0.8e
I do plan to add either GGI or MGL support for fullscreen access …
probably Scitech MGL since it will support more video cards.
Please please please please please do GGI support… as GGI is open-source and
supports more display methods (eg. X, X11DGA, Glide, SVGALib, fbcon, KGI,
AALib, render to memory/disk) and is waaaay cooler. MGL sucks as it is
commericial (and therefore you cut off a lot of your linux market straight
away). I certainly wouldn’t use it for that very reason (GGI on SVGALib is
quite ok for those who don’t like playing round with their kernel)
Please please please please please do GGI support… as GGI is open-source and
supports more display methods (eg. X, X11DGA, Glide, SVGALib, fbcon, KGI,
AALib, render to memory/disk) and is waaaay cooler. MGL sucks as it is
commericial (and therefore you cut off a lot of your linux market straight
away). I certainly wouldn’t use it for that very reason (GGI on SVGALib is
quite ok for those who don’t like playing round with their kernel)
MGL source code is freely available. Similar copy right as the Netscape
source code. And is way cool IMHO :)–
Hasse Schougaard @Hasse_Schougaard
MGL source code is freely available. Similar copy right as the Netscape
source code. And is way cool IMHO
Unfortunately, non-LGPL/GPL compatible licenses are a distaster area. Haven’t
you read Stallman complaining about Mozilla’s MPL and QT’s licensing disaster?
Oh, well… that’s the price you pay for freedom :-(On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 10:45:36PM +1000, Hasse Schougaard wrote:
MGL source code is freely available. Similar copy right as the Netscape
source code. And is way cool IMHO
Unfortunately, non-LGPL/GPL compatible licenses are a distaster area. Haven’t
you read Stallman complaining about Mozilla’s MPL and QT’s licensing disaster?
Fortunately SDL is in the position of being able to take advantage of
MGL if it is desired … so anyone who can’t hang with MGL doesn’t
have to use it. Of course, ideally, SDL will use MGL if it’s available
and drop to GGI when it’s not.
MGL has the advantage that it has been tested world-wide, very thoroughly.
BTW, there will be MGL drivers for GGI as far as I can tell.
Oh, well… that’s the price you pay for freedom
No price. Free!
See ya!
-Sam Lantinga (slouken at devolution.com)> On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 10:45:36PM +1000, Hasse Schougaard wrote:
MGL source code is freely available. Similar copy right as the Netscape
source code. And is way cool IMHO
Unfortunately, non-LGPL/GPL compatible licenses are a distaster area. Haven’t
you read Stallman complaining about Mozilla’s MPL and QT’s licensing disaster?
No, what did he say about them(I agree with him though, both have
demonstrated that any pollution on the GPL causes problems - grrr money).
njhOn Tue, 15 Sep 1998 michael at surfnetcity.com.au wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 10:45:36PM +1000, Hasse Schougaard wrote:
MGL source code is freely available. Similar copy right as the Netscape
source code. And is way cool IMHO
Unfortunately, non-LGPL/GPL compatible licenses are a distaster area. Haven’t
you read Stallman complaining about Mozilla’s MPL and QT’s licensing disaster?
Fortunately SDL is in the position of being able to take advantage of
MGL if it is desired … so anyone who can’t hang with MGL doesn’t
have to use it. Of course, ideally, SDL will use MGL if it’s available
and drop to GGI when it’s not.
MGL has the advantage that it has been tested world-wide, very thoroughly.
BTW, there will be MGL drivers for GGI as far as I can tell.
Oh, well… that’s the price you pay for freedom
No price. Free!
Remember freedom of price vs. freedom of rights. That’s the sort of stuff which
makes Microsoft claim IE is ‘free software’… In the case of Netscape I guess
it’s kind of justifyed as no-one else but a corporation is really capable of making
a browser project that big happen, but MGL - why should an essential linux
component (a graphic driver) be under a non-GPL/LGPL license?
Anyway, this discussion is getting a bit too off-topic, so if you are going to
reply to this, do it to me privately.
Peter> > On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 10:45:36PM +1000, Hasse Schougaard wrote:
