KDE 4.10 KWin To Properly Support AMD Catalyst

[curaga]

Talking about OpenGL, isn't it that in order to use some of the functions of more recent OGL versions, you have to use GLSL? That makes everything a lot more complicated if trying to do something simple, like a 2D game.

True, many of the recent functions aren't available in GL ASM (they are in Nvidia ASM extensions though). But to say that one doing a simple 2d game would prefer GL ASM to GLSL is, well, a bit uncommon

Or did you mean GLSL compared to fixed pipe?

[RussianNeuroMancer]

And when KDE 4.10 is released, the legacy driver will no longer support the kernel/X server of the day.

Nobody stopping you from using KWIN_DIRECT_GL=1 with KDE 4.8 or 4.9 for example in Kubuntu LTS or Debian Wheezy, or from using radeon driver instead of fglrx in any dsitribution, etc.

[GreatEmerald]

Talking about OpenGL, isn't it that in order to use some of the functions of more recent OGL versions, you have to use GLSL? That makes everything a lot more complicated if trying to do something simple, like a 2D game.

Direct rendering fix also included into Catalyst Legacy driver.

And when KDE 4.10 is released, the legacy driver will no longer support the kernel/X server of the day.

[ninez]

Compiz - uses indirect rendering only
Gnome Shell - uses direct rendering only, which is why it was broken when you ran with fglrx
KWin - made it optional and defaulted fglrx to indirect rendering since it was broken otherwise

Compiz can use Direct or Indirect rendering, and has had the option for many years. I haven't had to use indirect rendering in a really long time, but i think i still have a laptop kicking around with a radeon card that required the --indirect-rendering flag to be passed when starting compiz (or via compiz-icon option).

[RussianNeuroMancer]

Well, that's kind of a funny situation. KWin now supports Catalyst. Catalyst no longer supports my graphics card. :\ Oh well, at least r600g is awesome.

Direct rendering fix also included into Catalyst Legacy driver.

Compiz - uses indirect rendering only
Gnome Shell - uses direct rendering only, which is why it was broken when you ran with fglrx
KWin - made it optional and defaulted fglrx to indirect rendering since it was broken otherwise

Gnome Shell was broken not only because of problems with direct rendering.

[Awesomeness]

By the way, does Kwin 4.10 work with Wayland?

No and as long as Wayland itself is not actually working, there is no point it targeting it. KWin supports OpenGL ES2 which is the most important prerequisite for Wayland support. Now it?s the Wayland devs? turn to get Wayland out of pre-alpha quality.

[jrch2k8]

And it introduced many more. What do you call the word monster that is "layout(location = 4)"? Amazing?

But indeed, syntax is a subjective issue.



You're not considering their points, are you? Or mine, for that matter.

Let me rephrase - if I can get better syntax and same features by using gl2 + extension foo, why should I not do so?

don't bother is ovbiously trolling and in his world compatibility or core profiles don't exist and everything has to be rewrited in glsl 4.3 syntax or the universe will collapse

[mark45]

1.) won't even loose my time here since you ovbiously dont understand a shit about GL

2.) gl2.x is a superset of functions and extensions for dx9 class hardware forward compatible with dx10/11 class hardware
gl3.x is a superset of functions and extensions for dx10 class hardware forward compatible with dx11 class hardware
gl4.x is a superset of functions and extensions for dx11 class hardware

i dont know how you warped brain twisted the info into this OMG or you are trolling me or somehow you assume each gl release is a new language and every gpu in mankind history can do exactly the same thing and you need a GLX.y language to do cool 3d "thingies" and somehow is better than GLY.x cuz is an older language and hence do less cool 3d "thingies".

whatever make you happy ...

Are you stupid or just pretending to be one? If so, why?

[jrch2k8]

GL 4 is (much) better than GL 2. Period.
Don't confuse market share with the quality of the technology itself, anything starts with a zero market share, and don't give the "anything is subjective" semantic bullshit.

If GL 2 is better or equal to new versions than AMD, Intel and Nvidia (and other) devs are idiots because they're putting a lot of work into supporting
newer versions.

1.) won't even loose my time here since you ovbiously dont understand a shit about GL

2.) gl2.x is a superset of functions and extensions for dx9 class hardware forward compatible with dx10/11 class hardware
gl3.x is a superset of functions and extensions for dx10 class hardware forward compatible with dx11 class hardware
gl4.x is a superset of functions and extensions for dx11 class hardware

i dont know how you warped brain twisted the info into this OMG or you are trolling me or somehow you assume each gl release is a new language and every gpu in mankind history can do exactly the same thing and you need a GLX.y language to do cool 3d "thingies" and somehow is better than GLY.x cuz is an older language and hence do less cool 3d "thingies".

whatever make you happy ...

[curaga]

Remind me not to take your posts for serious ever again. "Worse syntax" haha, it's amazing. I've done 3.3 and compared to 2.1 it's got way better and cleaner syntax, to me getting rid of long words like "attribute" and "varying" alone is worth the transition, not to mention all the goodies bla bla.

And it introduced many more. What do you call the word monster that is "layout(location = 4)"? Amazing?

But indeed, syntax is a subjective issue.

I still hear people ranting about how X.org is good and "no need to fix it" so it's no wonder that there also are people with their heads up their asses claiming GL 2 is better or equal to GL 4.

And yeah, by their logic GLES 3 is not better than GLES 2.

You're not considering their points, are you? Or mine, for that matter.

Let me rephrase - if I can get better syntax and same features by using gl2 + extension foo, why should I not do so?