Hi,
I am somewhat new to SDL and have a question to guide future efforts.
Has anyone written an SDL X emulation? I.e., and XServer implemented in SDL?
There already is an X back-end to SDL; this proposition is different.
Thanks and,
Best Regards,
Philippe Laporte
yep
http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/13909777/dir/mandriva_2010/com/x11-server-xsdl-1.6.5-1.2mdv2010.0.i586.rpm.htmlOn Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Philippe Laporte wrote:
Hi,
I am somewhat new to SDL and have a question to guide future efforts.
Has anyone written an SDL X emulation? I.e., and XServer implemented in SDL?
There already is an X back-end to SDL; this proposition is different.
Thanks and,
Best Regards,
Philippe Laporte
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
bonkers, love itOn 14 June 2010 15:02, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
yep
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Philippe Laporte wrote:
Hi,
I am somewhat new to SDL and have a question to guide future efforts.
Has anyone written an SDL X emulation? I.e., and XServer implemented in
SDL?There already is an X back-end to SDL; this proposition is different.
Thanks and,
Best Regards,
Philippe Laporte
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgchecked for viruses and spam by CanIt.
http://www.canit4.3d.net.uk/
haha! that’s pretty awesome.------------------------
EM3 Nathaniel Fries, U.S. Navy
Hi,
Thanks for the Google results 
Is it possible to build KDrive in a pure SDL / OpenGL environment?
The package pointed at has too many dependencies…
Where might be the instructions for doing so?
Thanks a lot,
Philippe Laporte
Donny Viszneki wrote:> yep
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Philippe Laporte <@Philippe_Laporte> wrote:
Hi,
I am somewhat new to SDL and have a question to guide future efforts.
Has anyone written an SDL X emulation? I.e., and XServer implemented in SDL?
There already is an X back-end to SDL; this proposition is different.
Thanks and,
Best Regards,
Philippe Laporte
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Thanks for the Google results
any time
Is it possible to build KDrive in a pure SDL / OpenGL environment?
The package pointed at has too many dependencies…
Let’s examine that further:
libpixman-1.so.0
libXfont.so.1
libXdmcp.so.6
libXau.so.6
x11-server-common = 1.6.5-1.2mdv2010.0
The above are all pretty self-contained libs and should build
anywhere. They’re used internally in popular open source X
implementations.
libpthread.so.0
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0)
This is a dependency you get when you compile with -pthread. MSWindows
used to have a POSIX compatibility layer. If it doesn’t have pthread
API support now, there are other options like cygwin.
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
I’m not sure what the parts in parenthesis are supposed to mean
exactly, but this is all just the standard C library.
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1)
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0)
libdl.so.2
This is dlopen(3) et al. It lets programs take a more hands-on
approach to dynamic linkage. I have the same thing to say about this
as I did about pthreads.
libSDL-1.2.so.0
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libm.so.6
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
This is the standard math library. It should also be available
anywhere like the standard C library. You shouldn’t have to compile
this yourself, it will come with your software building tools like gcc
or whatever you use.
libcrypto.so.0.9.8
This is well contained, ultra-portable code.
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) <= 4.4.6-1
I’m not exactly sure what this means, but rpmlib has also been built
on a wide variety of platforms. I’m going to guess the parts in
parenthesis here reflect configuration options your rpmlib needs to be
built with. They seem to relate only to compressed file archives.
rtld(GNU_HASH)
I don’t know what this is, but I recognize “rtld” as being the prefix
to macros used with the dlopen(3) et al APIs mentioned earlier with
respect to libdl.
librt.so.1
librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2)
This is another lib providing POSIX APIs. Again, Linux or Cygwin are
probably the right answer.
libdbus-1.so.3
This is DBUS, an inter-process message passing API. The only
dependency this one has is an XML parser, according to its website.
libhal.so.1
This one may break you. I’m pretty sure HAL is very low-level and
there may not exist an implementation for a platform like MSWindows.On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Philippe Laporte wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
libhal.so.1
This one may break you. I’m pretty sure HAL is very low-level and
there may not exist an implementation for a platform like MSWindows.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been because
the common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?
I agree. X infrastructure is changing quite a bit. People think so
little of HAL, SDL doesn’t sound like an insane replacement anymore.
It could benefit KDrive.
I still feel like, we’re thinking in terms of SDL 1.2 though.
Kdrive is built with framebuffer object in mind so ofcourse it fits with SDL.
Hardware accelerated X over SDL 1.3, now thats revolutionary.On linux
it could be SDL over opengl, thats accelerated through DRI(which
doesn’t require X)
In this infrastructure we have a library for different levels of programming.
the big X
SDL (smaller more direct,no widgets etc.)
OpenGL - the really fancy stuff.
If xorg used SDL as the infrastructure, people would look at
DirectX/OpenGL as things to accelerate SDL with. Drivers even.
Something ridiculously low-level and arcane.
Program in DirectX/OpenGL? Might as well ask me to do it ASM,
programmers would say.On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah <@Jeremiah> wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been because
the common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Hi,
With all this talk of no-X opengl, including acceleration, I was wondering:
does this acceleration mean the same acceleration as we get when using (for
example) nvidia drivers for a nvidia card when using xorg at present?
I’ve been wishing for a slimmer, less cumbersome way to fun opengl apps than
having to do so on top of X for years. However, my ability to determine
whether X was redundant or not was woefully inadequate. For many of the
programs I’m interested in making, a single opengl-enabled window (with no
widgets) provides for all my needs. I really really wish I could get full
accelerated opengl without X. This would mean fewer sources of latency, much
much less memory use, and the ability to think about completely new
interface paradigms.
I came across directfb and apparently it can provide acceleration, but
there’s a matrix on this site that suggests they have incomplete
acceleration. Is it because they depend on open-source drivers which do not
yet (and perhaps never will) fully replicate proprietary drivers in
capability? Does a (for example) nvidia driver truly need X to work with in
order to give full acceleration of my video card?
This is a fascinating, attractive topic for me.
Thanks!
ChristianOn Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been because
the common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgI agree. X infrastructure is changing quite a bit. People think so
little of HAL, SDL doesn’t sound like an insane replacement anymore.
It could benefit KDrive.I still feel like, we’re thinking in terms of SDL 1.2 though.
Kdrive is built with framebuffer object in mind so ofcourse it fits with
SDL.Hardware accelerated X over SDL 1.3, now thats revolutionary.On linux
it could be SDL over opengl, thats accelerated through DRI(which
doesn’t require X)In this infrastructure we have a library for different levels of
programming.
the big X
SDL (smaller more direct,no widgets etc.)
OpenGL - the really fancy stuff.If xorg used SDL as the infrastructure, people would look at
DirectX/OpenGL as things to accelerate SDL with. Drivers even.
Something ridiculously low-level and arcane.
Program in DirectX/OpenGL? Might as well ask me to do it ASM,
programmers would say.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Hi,
With all this talk of no-X opengl, including acceleration, I was wondering:
does this acceleration mean the same acceleration as we get when using (for
example) nvidia drivers for a nvidia card when using xorg at present?I’ve been wishing for a slimmer, less cumbersome way to fun opengl apps than
having to do so on top of X for years. However, my ability to determine
whether X was redundant or not was woefully inadequate. For many of the
programs I’m interested in making, a single opengl-enabled window (with no
widgets) provides for all my needs. I really really wish I could get full
accelerated opengl without X. This would mean fewer sources of latency, much
much less memory use, and the ability to think about completely new
interface paradigms.I came across directfb and apparently it can provide acceleration, but
there’s a matrix on this site that suggests they have incomplete
acceleration. Is it because they depend on open-source drivers which do not
yet (and perhaps never will) fully replicate proprietary drivers in
capability? Does a (for example) nvidia driver truly need X to work with in
order to give full acceleration of my video card?This is a fascinating, attractive topic for me.
Thanks!
Christian
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been because
the common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgI agree. X infrastructure is changing quite a bit. People think so
little of HAL, SDL doesn’t sound like an insane replacement anymore.
It could benefit KDrive.I still feel like, we’re thinking in terms of SDL 1.2 though.
Kdrive is built with framebuffer object in mind so ofcourse it fits with
SDL.Hardware accelerated X over SDL 1.3, now thats revolutionary.On linux
it could be SDL over opengl, thats accelerated through DRI(which
doesn’t require X)In this infrastructure we have a library for different levels of
programming.
the big X
SDL (smaller more direct,no widgets etc.)
OpenGL - the really fancy stuff.If xorg used SDL as the infrastructure, people would look at
DirectX/OpenGL as things to accelerate SDL with. Drivers even.
Something ridiculously low-level and arcane.
?Program in DirectX/OpenGL? Might as well ask me to do it ASM,
programmers would say.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
This page will probably tell you all about it in detail.
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_without_X
Apparently, you just have to compile mesa with a few options.
http://www.mesa3d.org/fbdev-dri.html
And ofcourse recompile your graphics app to link with this protocol
here. http://www.mesa3d.org/MiniGLX.html
Otherwise it’ll think it still needs X.
No X emulation happening here, so you wont be running any
closed-source programs.On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Christian Leger <chrism.leger at gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah <@Jeremiah> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah <@Jeremiah> wrote:
Doesn’t using mesa imply using open-source drivers, which are incomplete
with regards to acceleration? Can a video card vendor’s driver operate
without X?On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Christian Leger <@Christian_Leger> wrote:
Hi,
With all this talk of no-X opengl, including acceleration, I was
wondering:
does this acceleration mean the same acceleration as we get when using
(for
example) nvidia drivers for a nvidia card when using xorg at present?I’ve been wishing for a slimmer, less cumbersome way to fun opengl apps
than
having to do so on top of X for years. However, my ability to determine
whether X was redundant or not was woefully inadequate. For many of the
programs I’m interested in making, a single opengl-enabled window (with
no
widgets) provides for all my needs. I really really wish I could get full
accelerated opengl without X. This would mean fewer sources of latency,
much
much less memory use, and the ability to think about completely new
interface paradigms.I came across directfb and apparently it can provide acceleration, but
there’s a matrix on this site that suggests they have incomplete
acceleration. Is it because they depend on open-source drivers which do
not
yet (and perhaps never will) fully replicate proprietary drivers in
capability? Does a (for example) nvidia driver truly need X to work with
in
order to give full acceleration of my video card?This is a fascinating, attractive topic for me.
Thanks!
Christian
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been because
the common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgI agree. X infrastructure is changing quite a bit. People think so
little of HAL, SDL doesn’t sound like an insane replacement anymore.
It could benefit KDrive.I still feel like, we’re thinking in terms of SDL 1.2 though.
Kdrive is built with framebuffer object in mind so ofcourse it fits with
SDL.Hardware accelerated X over SDL 1.3, now thats revolutionary.On linux
it could be SDL over opengl, thats accelerated through DRI(which
doesn’t require X)In this infrastructure we have a library for different levels of
programming.
the big X
SDL (smaller more direct,no widgets etc.)
OpenGL - the really fancy stuff.If xorg used SDL as the infrastructure, people would look at
DirectX/OpenGL as things to accelerate SDL with. Drivers even.
Something ridiculously low-level and arcane.
Program in DirectX/OpenGL? Might as well ask me to do it ASM,
programmers would say.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgThis page will probably tell you all about it in detail.
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_without_XApparently, you just have to compile mesa with a few options.
http://www.mesa3d.org/fbdev-dri.htmlAnd ofcourse recompile your graphics app to link with this protocol
here. http://www.mesa3d.org/MiniGLX.html
Otherwise it’ll think it still needs X.No X emulation happening here, so you wont be running any
closed-source programs.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
ATI has released full technical documents for all their graphics chipsets.
I’m also not sure about some of your other assertions made here…On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Christian Leger <chrism.leger at gmail.com> wrote:
Doesn’t using mesa imply using open-source drivers, which are incomplete
with regards to acceleration? Can a video card vendor’s driver operate
without X?On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Christian Leger <chrism.leger at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
With all this talk of no-X opengl, including acceleration, I was
wondering:
does this acceleration mean the same acceleration as we get when using
(for
example) nvidia drivers for a nvidia card when using xorg at present?I’ve been wishing for a slimmer, less cumbersome way to fun opengl apps
than
having to do so on top of X for years. However, my ability to determine
whether X was redundant or not was woefully inadequate. For many of the
programs I’m interested in making, a single opengl-enabled window (with
no
widgets) provides for all my needs. I really really wish I could get
full
accelerated opengl without X. This would mean fewer sources of latency,
much
much less memory use, and the ability to think about completely new
interface paradigms.I came across directfb and apparently it can provide acceleration, but
there’s a matrix on this site that suggests they have incomplete
acceleration. Is it because they depend on open-source drivers which do
not
yet (and perhaps never will) fully replicate proprietary drivers in
capability? Does a (for example) nvidia driver truly need X to work with
in
order to give full acceleration of my video card?This is a fascinating, attractive topic for me.
Thanks!
Christian
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <@Donny_Viszneki> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL, that
SDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been because
the common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgI agree. X infrastructure is changing quite a bit. People think so
little of HAL, SDL doesn’t sound like an insane replacement anymore.
It could benefit KDrive.I still feel like, we’re thinking in terms of SDL 1.2 though.
Kdrive is built with framebuffer object in mind so ofcourse it fits
with
SDL.Hardware accelerated X over SDL 1.3, now thats revolutionary.On linux
it could be SDL over opengl, thats accelerated through DRI(which
doesn’t require X)In this infrastructure we have a library for different levels of
programming.
the big X
SDL (smaller more direct,no widgets etc.)
OpenGL - the really fancy stuff.If xorg used SDL as the infrastructure, people would look at
DirectX/OpenGL as things to accelerate SDL with. Drivers even.
Something ridiculously low-level and arcane.
?Program in DirectX/OpenGL? Might as well ask me to do it ASM,
programmers would say.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgThis page will probably tell you all about it in detail.
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_without_XApparently, you just have ?to compile mesa with a few options.
http://www.mesa3d.org/fbdev-dri.htmlAnd ofcourse recompile your graphics app to link with this protocol
here. ?http://www.mesa3d.org/MiniGLX.html
Otherwise it’ll think it still needs X.No X emulation happening here, so you wont be running any
closed-source programs.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Ok. I knew about ATI and their specs. I meant to refer to the fact that the
drivers currently available from vendors, ie, not community-written, may or
may not require X to function.
So let me attempt to restate my question: can full hardware acceleration for
video be obtained without X, out of the box using currently available
software, or with a well-defined set of modifications to currently available
software? Can I program opengl apps with all the acceleration features
avaiable with my current video card+driver setup, without depending on X?
Thanks,
Christian.On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com>wrote:
ATI has released full technical documents for all their graphics chipsets.
I’m also not sure about some of your other assertions made here…
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Christian Leger <@Christian_Leger> wrote:
Doesn’t using mesa imply using open-source drivers, which are incomplete
with regards to acceleration? Can a video card vendor’s driver operate
without X?On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Christian Leger < @Christian_Leger> wrote:
Hi,
With all this talk of no-X opengl, including acceleration, I was
wondering:
does this acceleration mean the same acceleration as we get when using
(for
example) nvidia drivers for a nvidia card when using xorg at present?I’ve been wishing for a slimmer, less cumbersome way to fun opengl
appsthan
having to do so on top of X for years. However, my ability to
determinewhether X was redundant or not was woefully inadequate. For many of
theprograms I’m interested in making, a single opengl-enabled window
(withno
widgets) provides for all my needs. I really really wish I could get
full
accelerated opengl without X. This would mean fewer sources of
latency,much
much less memory use, and the ability to think about completely new
interface paradigms.I came across directfb and apparently it can provide acceleration, but
there’s a matrix on this site that suggests they have incomplete
acceleration. Is it because they depend on open-source drivers which
donot
yet (and perhaps never will) fully replicate proprietary drivers in
capability? Does a (for example) nvidia driver truly need X to work
within
order to give full acceleration of my video card?This is a fascinating, attractive topic for me.
Thanks!
Christian
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeremiah wrote:
This begs the question, what does Kdrive really need from HAL,
thatSDL doesn’t have? SDL’s input system doesn’t require HAL does it?
I’m pretty positive it could be factored out, but hasn’t been
becausethe common X infrastructure it employs needs the HAL API.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgI agree. X infrastructure is changing quite a bit. People think so
little of HAL, SDL doesn’t sound like an insane replacement anymore.
It could benefit KDrive.I still feel like, we’re thinking in terms of SDL 1.2 though.
Kdrive is built with framebuffer object in mind so ofcourse it fits
with
SDL.Hardware accelerated X over SDL 1.3, now thats revolutionary.On linux
it could be SDL over opengl, thats accelerated through DRI(which
doesn’t require X)In this infrastructure we have a library for different levels of
programming.
the big X
SDL (smaller more direct,no widgets etc.)
OpenGL - the really fancy stuff.If xorg used SDL as the infrastructure, people would look at
DirectX/OpenGL as things to accelerate SDL with. Drivers even.
Something ridiculously low-level and arcane.
Program in DirectX/OpenGL? Might as well ask me to do it ASM,
programmers would say.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.orgThis page will probably tell you all about it in detail.
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_without_XApparently, you just have to compile mesa with a few options.
http://www.mesa3d.org/fbdev-dri.htmlAnd ofcourse recompile your graphics app to link with this protocol
here. http://www.mesa3d.org/MiniGLX.html
Otherwise it’ll think it still needs X.No X emulation happening here, so you wont be running any
closed-source programs.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Yes. You’re using SDL, therefore X-dependency is a run-time question,
not a compile-time question (with respect to compiling and running
your application.)
What will happen when you run? I guess check your video card / drivers
out and see what they say :OOn Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christian Leger <chrism.leger at gmail.com> wrote:
Can I program opengl apps with all the acceleration features
avaiable with my current video card+driver setup, without depending on X?
Ok,
Maybe some research will tech me this but I’ve certainly tried to find out
in the past and failed. What is the simplest/fastest way to coding an opengl
app without an X server? Does this last answer suggest that I can run my sdl
app from console?
ChristianOn Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com>wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christian Leger <@Christian_Leger> wrote:
Can I program opengl apps with all the acceleration features
avaiable with my current video card+driver setup, without depending on X?Yes. You’re using SDL, therefore X-dependency is a run-time question,
not a compile-time question (with respect to compiling and running
your application.)What will happen when you run? I guess check your video card / drivers
out and see what they say
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Just a quick not on this subject. If you want standalone OpenGL based
program that you can run from the console the easiest way is not to
get rid of the X server. The X server do a lot of stuff for you. Among
other things it handles all the input. Modern servers have code to
identify the video card and to select and use the best available video
card drivers. It also has all the code needed to create a OpenGL
window and put it on the screen.
On top of that the X server is not all that big, most people forget
that the size listed for the server usually includes the size of the
framebuffer and the memory used to communicate with the graphics
drivers. That is space you will have to use with or with out an X
server.
What is the easiest way to get raw fully configured and fully
accelerated OpenGL based programs that you can run from the console?
Hollow out the X server and make it the base library for your program.
Yes, I am telling you to take the source for the X server and cut out
all most all of the X server stuff except for the I/O handlers, the
initialization, and what ever else you want to use. Clearly you’ll
drop all the rendering code and the protocol handling code…
If you look inside the server you will find a nice simple loop that
looks just like the event loop you get in SDL. It looks for input
events and hands them off to code that process them. Just build your
application in side a stripped down X server and you have what you
want. Hey the X server already has really robust networking code too.
Seriously, this is by far the easiest way to do what you are talking
about. It has the nice advantage that you can send you code anywhere
that can run an X server and it will configure itself and run just
like the X server does.
The X server also has a very liberal license. You can use the code
pretty much anyway you want and you do not have to show your source to
anyone.
Doing that beats trying to duplicate all that functionality from scratch.
I guess if you are trying to build an arcade style system or a system
where you had to minimize input latency then putting the application
directly into the shell of the X server makes a lot of sense.
Bob PendletonOn Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Christian Leger <chrism.leger at gmail.com> wrote:
Ok,
Maybe some research will tech me this but I’ve certainly tried to find out
in the past and failed. What is the simplest/fastest way to coding an opengl
app without an X server? Does this last answer suggest that I can run my sdl
app from console?Christian
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christian Leger <chrism.leger at gmail.com> wrote:
Can I program opengl apps with all the acceleration features
avaiable with my current video card+driver setup, without depending on
X?Yes. You’re using SDL, therefore X-dependency is a run-time question,
not a compile-time question (with respect to compiling and running
your application.)What will happen when you run? I guess check your video card / drivers
out and see what they say
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
±----------------------------------------------------------
That’s incredibly interesting, if a bit intimidating, Bob. I certainly WILL
have a look at that source. I suppose my use of SDL doesn’t need to change,
does it? Right now I’m using SDL strictly for getting a window to render
into, and keyboard and mouse inputs.
I actually did consider taking a look at the source, and trying to prune
it… although my forays into source trees of various famous open source
programs have caused more dead-ends and nightmares than any tangible
results. I still have seizure-inducing twitch reactions to my memories of
the program ‘ls’. Of course that was years ago and likely I’d do much better
now.
Indeed, I am thinking about making some sort of arcade-like system, albeit
one with all the regular capabilities of a computer system. But with faster
responses, more unified menus and metaphors. Ok I stop now before your
glasses all fog up with the steam.
Pruning X…Great Scott!
ChristianOn Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Bob Pendleton wrote:
Just a quick not on this subject. If you want standalone OpenGL based
program that you can run from the console the easiest way is not to
get rid of the X server. The X server do a lot of stuff for you. Among
other things it handles all the input. Modern servers have code to
identify the video card and to select and use the best available video
card drivers. It also has all the code needed to create a OpenGL
window and put it on the screen.On top of that the X server is not all that big, most people forget
that the size listed for the server usually includes the size of the
framebuffer and the memory used to communicate with the graphics
drivers. That is space you will have to use with or with out an X
server.What is the easiest way to get raw fully configured and fully
accelerated OpenGL based programs that you can run from the console?
Hollow out the X server and make it the base library for your program.
Yes, I am telling you to take the source for the X server and cut out
all most all of the X server stuff except for the I/O handlers, the
initialization, and what ever else you want to use. Clearly you’ll
drop all the rendering code and the protocol handling code…If you look inside the server you will find a nice simple loop that
looks just like the event loop you get in SDL. It looks for input
events and hands them off to code that process them. Just build your
application in side a stripped down X server and you have what you
want. Hey the X server already has really robust networking code too.Seriously, this is by far the easiest way to do what you are talking
about. It has the nice advantage that you can send you code anywhere
that can run an X server and it will configure itself and run just
like the X server does.The X server also has a very liberal license. You can use the code
pretty much anyway you want and you do not have to show your source to
anyone.Doing that beats trying to duplicate all that functionality from scratch.
I guess if you are trying to build an arcade style system or a system
where you had to minimize input latency then putting the application
directly into the shell of the X server makes a lot of sense.Bob Pendleton
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Christian Leger <@Christian_Leger> wrote:
Ok,
Maybe some research will tech me this but I’ve certainly tried to find
out
in the past and failed. What is the simplest/fastest way to coding an
opengl
app without an X server? Does this last answer suggest that I can run my
sdl
app from console?Christian
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Donny Viszneki < donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christian Leger <@Christian_Leger> wrote:
Can I program opengl apps with all the acceleration features
avaiable with my current video card+driver setup, without depending on
X?Yes. You’re using SDL, therefore X-dependency is a run-time question,
not a compile-time question (with respect to compiling and running
your application.)What will happen when you run? I guess check your video card / drivers
out and see what they say
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org–
±----------------------------------------------------------
- Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
- email: Bob at Pendleton.com
- web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Bob wrote:
What is the easiest way to get raw fully configured and fully
accelerated OpenGL based programs that you can run from the console?
Hollow out the X server and make it the base library for your program.
Yes, I am telling you to take the source for the X server and cut out
all most all of the X server stuff except for the I/O handlers, the
initialization, and what ever else you want to use. Clearly you’ll
drop all the rendering code and the protocol handling code…
Actually, that’s an interesting idea that I should look into sometime…
The X server also has a very liberal license. You can use the code
pretty much anyway you want and you do not have to show your source to
anyone.Doing that beats trying to duplicate all that functionality from scratch.
To make a note, X.org X Server is under a very liberal (MIT) license. XFree86 is a little more restrictive license, but I don’t think it’s nearly as restrictive as the GNU GPL.------------------------
EM3 Nathaniel Fries, U.S. Navy
Hopefully you’ll share with us anything you discover or succeed in doing!On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Nathaniel J Fries wrote:
Bob wrote:
What is the easiest way to get raw fully configured and fully
accelerated OpenGL based programs that you can run from the console?
Hollow out the X server and make it the base library for your program.
Yes, I am telling you to take the source for the X server and cut out
all most all of the X server stuff except for the I/O handlers, the
initialization, and what ever else you want to use. Clearly you’ll
drop all the rendering code and the protocol handling code…Actually, that’s an interesting idea that I should look into sometime…
Quote:
The X server also has a very liberal license. You can use the code
pretty much anyway you want and you do not have to show your source to
anyone.Doing that beats trying to duplicate all that functionality from scratch.
To make a note, X.org X Server is under a very liberal (MIT) license.
XFree86 is a little more restrictive license, but I don’t think it’s nearly
as restrictive as the GNU GPL.
EM3 Nathaniel Fries, U.S. Navy
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
