Originally posted by energyman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A New Linux OpenGL ABI Is Being Proposed
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by energyman View PostAs far as I understand the mailing list message you are wrong. The proposal talks about different libgl's in the file system. Not running simultaniously.
F
Comment
-
Originally posted by elanthis View PostThese aren't equivalent. GLUT is like a shitty toy version of GTK/Qt. EGL is an OS-neutral version of GLX. GLUT layers over GLX/WGL/AGL/EGL, and offers borderline useless input and timer mechanisms and window management. EGL lets you create and bind GL contexts to a full real windowing system and allows using the native fully featured window system API for input, timers, I/O, events, etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by energyman View PostAs far as I understand the mailing list message you are wrong. The proposal talks about different libgl's in the file system. Not running simultaniously.
Gentoo already offers exactly that.
And no, Gentoo does NOT allow even having multiple GL implementations simultaneously, because the very infrastructure of Mesa/libGL on Linux does not allow this, hence this entire proposal. Your client application has no way to select a GL implementation at runtime, and the Gentoo (and most every other Linux distro) facilities for swapping GL implementations do so by ripping out the current libGL and replacing it. It does not allow two apps running at the same time using two different libGLs, which is impossible aside from using separate chroot's or LD_PRELOAD tricks (and even then, only when using separate X instances and so on, because X itself can only have a single libGL loaded).
Comment
-
Originally posted by elanthis View PostThe message very explicitly states that it should/will support loading multiple vendor back ends in the same address space, in clear terms.
And no, Gentoo does NOT allow even having multiple GL implementations simultaneously
Good answer. The big question that I have is, is this necessary? Are there two OSS GL implementations? If there isn't, then are we not just catering to something that Nvidia desires to facilitate their blobs installation? Does this benefit FOSS GL implementations in any manner, such as being able to run Mesa 8.0 and 9.0 implementations simultaneously, or nouveau and radeon simultaneously, XGL and EGL apps simultaneously?
To restate, is this an improvement to Linux, an improvement to Nvidia blob-using-customers, or both?
F
Comment
-
Originally posted by russofris View PostGood answer. The big question that I have is, is this necessary? Are there two OSS GL implementations? If there isn't, then are we not just catering to something that Nvidia desires to facilitate their blobs installation? Does this benefit FOSS GL implementations in any manner, such as being able to run Mesa 8.0 and 9.0 implementations simultaneously, or nouveau and radeon simultaneously, XGL and EGL apps simultaneously?
To restate, is this an improvement to Linux, an improvement to Nvidia blob-using-customers, or both?
F
Comment
-
Didn't know that using an api with hardware is so limited on linux!
We really need some progress on how drivers can expose api's(including abi's), how libraries are handled.
And about the file system conflicts. That's why you don't put all the bin of all the user programs in one folder and all the libs of all the user programs in one folder and so on...
You give each program it's own folder with subdirectories.
One distribution has done this and seems to have found things can work very well:
http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance
Comment
-
Originally posted by russofris View PostGood answer. The big question that I have is, is this necessary? Are there two OSS GL implementations? If there isn't, then are we not just catering to something that Nvidia desires to facilitate their blobs installation? Does this benefit FOSS GL implementations in any manner, such as being able to run Mesa 8.0 and 9.0 implementations simultaneously, or nouveau and radeon simultaneously, XGL and EGL apps simultaneously?
To restate, is this an improvement to Linux, an improvement to Nvidia blob-using-customers, or both?
F
If this also helps NVIDIA to ship a blob that integrates better with the rest of the system, then how is this not a good thing? If anything, this would allow vendors to create hardware-specific, high-performance, open-source GL implementations for their hardware that bypasses Mesa in favor of performance and functionality, and distribute it without having to worry about interfering with system GL libraries. They could expose a GL 4.2 profile without having to first update all of Mesa to be compliant, then implement their driver within the Mesa/Gallium framework. Remember that Mesa is just another OpenGL vendor.
Comment
Comment