From: Nathan H. <na...@ma...> - 2000-10-26 05:25:39
|
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 06:55:12PM -0700, Philip Brown wrote: > > Alternately: > Why does the client side *really* need pure "direct" access? > Okay, latency. But why can't you use doors or something, to have the client > call functions in the server when it needs to tweak the hardware? No, bandwidth. We are talking huge bandwidth here. The 3d cards are already maxing out PC busses. They're inventing new busses just to keep up with the enormous demands of the 3d cards. Any indirect access will involve at least 1 copy. That's going to halve the available bandwidth. The DRI actually increases latency through buffers. It doesn't matter. It's bandwidth that you try to maximise. > But the majority of the opensource effort right now for intel UNIX 3d > hardware is going into the DRI modules, it seems. So you are the only game > in town. What's this supposed to mean? The DRI is open source. The CVS is open. The mailing list is open. Everyone is allowed to contribute. PI releases every scrap of documentation possible and discusses nearly everything on the public mailing list. What more can PI do? > Why all the extra-special authentication? Why isn't it good enough to say > "Whoever's on console can have access"? > > I dont know how linux does it, but on solaris, theres a fairly simple thing > somewhere that checks who logs in on console, and basicaly does > > chown $USER /dev/fb /dev/audio > > Why isn't something simple like that appropriate, instead of adding yet > another driver into the mix? Because it isn't the console you want to authorise. You authorise against a X11 session. |