hi,
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
i thinking about hacking in the X code
(e.g. implement a faster communication channel than sockets
(ipc,shmem,…) )
and when i?m doing this, i could also try to port it to sdl …
please let me know, what you think about it.
bye,
ew.------------------------------------------
lets go to another world … oberon
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
i thinking about hacking in the X code
(e.g. implement a faster communication channel than sockets
(ipc,shmem,…) )
Starting with XFree86? Talk about code bloat…
The new Xfree86 4.0 is supposed to separate out low level drivers from
the x protocol stuff so it will be easier to add support (accelerated in
2d and 3d) for new hardware as it comes out. Working within that
context I could see it being feasable doing an SDL driver. But what would
it work under? X? So you’d have an X server running on an X server? Or an
X server running on win32? I guess I’m wondering what would be the point.
-Dave
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end. And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).I suggest starting with the X server built into VNC
(http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/), which currently writes to an invisible
frame buffer, which is then transmitted to connected clients upon request.
However, I think it could easily be retargeted to SDL.Or, you could start with Xvfb (X Virtual Frame Buffer), which also targets a
memory-based virtual frame buffer. This should be easy to retarget to SDL.Then, if we got SDL working on SVGALib, we might have a lighter-weight X server
for x86-based UNIX. Also, it would then be a matter of recompiling to bring up
a new, free, X server for Win32. Which would allow more people running that OS
to discover the power of X, and run various X apps locally, with decent
performance, for free.Warren
Well I’m sold on the concept. It’d be very nice getting Xfree86 out of the
picture and its 50+ meg source tree (of what I wonder???). Essentially
impossible to join the project and contribute because there are
no reasonable docs explaining where everything is. And they’re really slow
coming out with support for new boards.
Now if we’re talking SDL running on SVGALib and that gives you fast
display updates…
Somehow I’d like something to magically happen such that a non root
application can take over the display (switch resolution and possibly
depth). I like fullscreen modes but I don’t like running as root or
making /dev/mem accessable by everyone.
-Dave
since SDL works under Windows, i think this might help the effort to build
a good Free X server under win32. you can compile alotta stuff (freeciv,
gimp, etc) under win32 using a patched XFree and Cygwin. but to run it
under win32 you need a decent X server. mi/x doesnt do everything/is ugly
and xwin-32 has a 2 hour time limit. others (Exceed for example) cost
lots of $!>
hi,
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
i thinking about hacking in the X code
(e.g. implement a faster communication channel than sockets
(ipc,shmem,…) )and when i?m doing this, i could also try to port it to sdl …
please let me know, what you think about it.
bye,
ew.
lets go to another world … oberon
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end. And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).
I suggest starting with the X server built into VNC
(http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/), which currently writes to an invisible
frame buffer, which is then transmitted to connected clients upon request.
However, I think it could easily be retargeted to SDL.
Or, you could start with Xvfb (X Virtual Frame Buffer), which also targets a
memory-based virtual frame buffer. This should be easy to retarget to SDL.
Then, if we got SDL working on SVGALib, we might have a lighter-weight X server
for x86-based UNIX. Also, it would then be a matter of recompiling to bring up
a new, free, X server for Win32. Which would allow more people running that OS
to discover the power of X, and run various X apps locally, with decent
performance, for free.
Warren
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: Re: [SDL] XServer for SDL ?
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/26/99 12:28 PM
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
i thinking about hacking in the X code
(e.g. implement a faster communication channel than sockets
(ipc,shmem,…) )
Starting with XFree86? Talk about code bloat…
The new Xfree86 4.0 is supposed to separate out low level drivers from
the x protocol stuff so it will be easier to add support (accelerated in
2d and 3d) for new hardware as it comes out. Working within that
context I could see it being feasable doing an SDL driver. But what would
it work under? X? So you’d have an X server running on an X server? Or an
X server running on win32? I guess I’m wondering what would be the point.
-Dave
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end. And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).
Well, it would certainly be an interesting project, and would result
in a much better SDL implementation to support all the hardware
acceleration possible with an X server. 
Go for it!
-Sam Lantinga (slouken at devolution.com)
Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software–
“Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature”
– Rich Kulawiec
Re: non root application can take over the display (switch resolution and
possibly depth).
If you write your own X server, you can do this. Basically, the X server runs
as root, and can pass on whatever capabilities it desires, to the end user.
XFree86 isn’t very flexible about what capabilities it can pass on, but you
could write an X server that was.
Warren
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: Re: Re[2]: [SDL] XServer for SDL ?
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/26/99 2:04 PM
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end. And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).I suggest starting with the X server built into VNC
(http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/), which currently writes to an invisible
frame buffer, which is then transmitted to connected clients upon request.
However, I think it could easily be retargeted to SDL.Or, you could start with Xvfb (X Virtual Frame Buffer), which also targets a
memory-based virtual frame buffer. This should be easy to retarget to SDL.Then, if we got SDL working on SVGALib, we might have a lighter-weight X server
for x86-based UNIX. Also, it would then be a matter of recompiling to bring up
a new, free, X server for Win32. Which would allow more people running that OS
to discover the power of X, and run various X apps locally, with decent
performance, for free.Warren
Well I’m sold on the concept. It’d be very nice getting Xfree86 out of the
picture and its 50+ meg source tree (of what I wonder???). Essentially
impossible to join the project and contribute because there are
no reasonable docs explaining where everything is. And they’re really slow
coming out with support for new boards.
Now if we’re talking SDL running on SVGALib and that gives you fast
display updates…
Somehow I’d like something to magically happen such that a non root
application can take over the display (switch resolution and possibly
depth). I like fullscreen modes but I don’t like running as root or
making /dev/mem accessable by everyone.
-Dave
That would hardly be useful since SDL is written on top of X wouldn’t it?On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, you wrote:
hi,
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
Why create X under win32?
Why emulate a stable system with an instable system? 
EnzoOn Wed, 25 Aug 1999, you wrote:
hi,
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
Why create X under win32?
Why emulate a stable system with an instable system?Enzo
I use the MI/X X server at work when I’m forced to use win95 to be
compatible with everyone else. I can’t use XV with that–I just get an
empty window. Some stuff works, some doesn’t. But what the X server I have
running all the time (MI/X) gives me is a window onto a stable linux box,
which I use to check email, do unix stuff, ftp, etc. I’d rather have an
xterm session on the MI/X than the awful telnet client bundled with win95.
So to get that same functionality only better I’d be very interested.
Only if it were free though–Exceed was cool but cost $$$. I never heard of
the other one recently mentioned with the 2 hour time limit.
-Dave
Agreed with comments below. I believe the one with the two hour time limit was
StarNet communications’ X server X-Win32 (http://www.starnet.com/). Their list
price is $200.
Another option I’ve considered is:
This avoids the problem VNC has of time consuming frame buffer transfers, and
instead uses X’s somewhat more efficient protocol (which transfers drawing
commands most of the time, unless you have bitmaps to transfer).
I haven’t tried this, but it’s an idea you may wish to try. The VNC source code
is available at their site (mentioned in earlier messages).
Warren
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: Re: [SDL] XServer for SDL ?
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/27/99 7:00 PM
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
Why create X under win32?
Why emulate a stable system with an instable system?Enzo
I use the MI/X X server at work when I’m forced to use win95 to be
compatible with everyone else. I can’t use XV with that–I just get an
empty window. Some stuff works, some doesn’t. But what the X server I have
running all the time (MI/X) gives me is a window onto a stable linux box,
which I use to check email, do unix stuff, ftp, etc. I’d rather have an
xterm session on the MI/X than the awful telnet client bundled with win95.
So to get that same functionality only better I’d be very interested.
Only if it were free though–Exceed was cool but cost $$$. I never heard of
the other one recently mentioned with the 2 hour time limit.
-Dave
Daniel Tabuenca wrote:
hi,
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
That would hardly be useful since SDL is written on top of X wouldn’t it?
aehm… turn it around ? hardware drivers into SDL, X server on top of
SDL,
old X into trashcan …
perhaps somebody could rewrite the xlibs so they directy use SDL -
would
bring much more performance.
ew.> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, you wrote:
lets go to another world … oberon
“Dave Ashley (SDL list)” wrote:
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
i thinking about hacking in the X code
(e.g. implement a faster communication channel than sockets
(ipc,shmem,…) )Starting with XFree86? Talk about code bloat…
hmm…The new Xfree86 4.0 is supposed to separate out low level drivers from
the x protocol stuff so it will be easier to add support (accelerated in
2d and 3d) for new hardware as it comes out. Working within that
context I could see it being feasable doing an SDL driver. But what would
it work under? X? So you’d have an X server running on an X server? Or an
X server running on win32? I guess I’m wondering what would be the point.
no, not x on x …
the hardware access and the main display management is done by SDL
directly
(not over X). and the X server sits on top of the SDL and enables
displaying
X applicatons on an SDL display.
ew.>
-Dave
lets go to another world … oberon
Sam Lantinga wrote:
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end. And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).Well, it would certainly be an interesting project, and would result
in a much better SDL implementation to support all the hardware
acceleration possible with an X server.
that?s what i meant.
ew.-------------------------------------------
lets go to another world … oberon
Warren Downs wrote:
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end. And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).
yeah. it would also mean, splitting the display drivers from the X
stuff.
(now it?s so: if i want to have a new graphics driver [e.g. new card] i
have
to get the whole server. very nice!)
it also would make it much easier to configure the whole system …
I suggest starting with the X server built into VNC
(http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/), which currently writes to an invisible
frame buffer, which is then transmitted to connected clients upon request.
However, I think it could easily be retargeted to SDL.
Or, you could start with Xvfb (X Virtual Frame Buffer), which also targets a
memory-based virtual frame buffer. This should be easy to retarget to SDL.
hmm… could be an solution.
Then, if we got SDL working on SVGALib, we might have a lighter-weight X server
for x86-based UNIX. Also, it would then be a matter of recompiling to bring up
a new, free, X server for Win32. Which would allow more people running that OS
to discover the power of X, and run various X apps locally, with decent
performance, for free.
that?s a point.
ew.-------------------------------------------
lets go to another world … oberon
Warren Downs wrote:
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end.
Alright, so to sum things up:
There’s X, GGI can run on top of X but there’s also a ggi-based X-server. What
about running a normal X-server, a ggi X-server inside it and finally a
SDL-based X-server inside the second server using ggi using X? But that would
leave SVGALib out…
It’s nice when things are flexible and portable and retargetable etc., but
sometimes it’s a waste of time, don’t you people think?
And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).
I don’t like win32 and I don’t like X…what would be such server good for? To
slow things down?
yeah. it would also mean, splitting the display drivers from the X
stuff.
(now it?s so: if i want to have a new graphics driver [e.g. new card] i
have
to get the whole server. very nice!)
This will change in XFree 4.0 - there will be a new driver architecture ->
only one big server + drivers for cards. Very nice!
TomasOn Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Do you really need a whole X server for Win32? Why not just port the
libraries to use the existing Win32 stuff and add where there are lacking
features. I think work like this is being done on the Cygwin project…
Dave> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Warren Downs wrote:
The point would be: SDL can be retargeted at a later date, to use GGI, or
SVGALib, or something else, and now you’d have an X server that would run on
that back end.Alright, so to sum things up:
There’s X, GGI can run on top of X but there’s also a ggi-based X-server. What
about running a normal X-server, a ggi X-server inside it and finally a
SDL-based X-server inside the second server using ggi using X? But that would
leave SVGALib out…It’s nice when things are flexible and portable and retargetable etc., but
sometimes it’s a waste of time, don’t you people think?And yes, it would be good to have a free, featureful X server
for Win32 (the free ones available aren’t open source, and don’t support all
necessary features).I don’t like win32 and I don’t like X…what would be such server good for? To
slow things down?yeah. it would also mean, splitting the display drivers from the X
stuff.
(now it?s so: if i want to have a new graphics driver [e.g. new card] i
have
to get the whole server. very nice!)This will change in XFree 4.0 - there will be a new driver architecture ->
only one big server + drivers for cards. Very nice!Tomas
Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn’t have bugs,
then they’d be algorithms.
fn53974 at bo.flashnet.it wrote:
hi,
what do you think of an XServer which uses SDL instead of own drivers ?
Why create X under win32?
Why emulate a stable system with an instable system?
hmmm… interesting question …
for those people who love animating icons but sometimes want to use
stable apps on stable systems somewhere in the net …
okay, it?s silly, but those people exist
ew.> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, you wrote:
lets go to another world … oberon
…
I don’t like win32 and I don’t like X…what would be such server good for? To
slow things down?…
Tomas
Well, there are some of us who are forced to use Win32 at times (e.g. work),
and would like an easy way to get to our Linux boxes hidden under the desk
Warren
Actually, this sounds pretty nice… I hadn’t heard of it. Where can we read
about this?
However, this only works for apps that are recompiled to use the libs. There
are also apps that:
So, I guess it would be nice to have both options.
Warren
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: Re: [SDL] XServer for SDL ?
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/29/99 4:36 PM
Do you really need a whole X server for Win32? Why not just port the
libraries to use the existing Win32 stuff and add where there are lacking
features. I think work like this is being done on the Cygwin project…
Dave
[…snip…]