From: Chris J. <cg...@gm...> - 2008-11-19 02:43:58
|
I'm finding it difficult to "place" the framebuffer project. What is/are its objective(s)? Is it meant to be an alternative to X? Is it just a generic low-level package that complements X in the event no specific driver for a given video chip is not available? Most people appear to think in a vague kind of way that the framebuffer is just a bunch of tricks that let you use a higher resolution on the linux console. This seems to make little sense in the light of all the activity on the fbdev development list where patches (both corrections & enhancements) are published on a daily basis. I just cannot imagine a number of high-end programmers spending their time providing enhancements for the linux console - especially when you consider how very few applications can actually run in that environment and usually with some feature loss as compared to running them in an xterm, for instance. There seems to be something much more important at stake than the linux console but after reading the few available docs and being subscribed to both fbdev lists for a number of years, I still don't get it. :-( Apologies if this post makes little sense to some/most.. I'm hitting a wall and I guess that I am just too ignorant to ask the right questions. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will help reformulate and maybe come up with the question(s) I am incapable of asking. :-) Thanks! CJ |
From: Russell S. <rj...@ne...> - 2008-11-19 04:41:21
|
Chris Jones wrote: > I'm finding it difficult to "place" the framebuffer project. > > What is/are its objective(s)? > > Is it meant to be an alternative to X? > > Is it just a generic low-level package that complements X in the event > no specific driver for a given video chip is not available? > > Most people appear to think in a vague kind of way that the framebuffer > is just a bunch of tricks that let you use a higher resolution on the > linux console. > > This seems to make little sense in the light of all the activity on the > fbdev development list where patches (both corrections & enhancements) > are published on a daily basis. > > I just cannot imagine a number of high-end programmers spending their > time providing enhancements for the linux console - especially when you > consider how very few applications can actually run in that environment > and usually with some feature loss as compared to running them in an > xterm, for instance. > > There seems to be something much more important at stake than the linux > console but after reading the few available docs and being subscribed to > both fbdev lists for a number of years, I still don't get it. > > :-( > > Apologies if this post makes little sense to some/most.. I'm hitting a > wall and I guess that I am just too ignorant to ask the right questions. > > Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will help reformulate and maybe > come up with the question(s) I am incapable of asking. > > :-) I think the main use is so that X or other GUI apps can run on smaller embedded systems that don't have any hardware accelerated video chip. You just bit-bang pixels in a memory area (the framebuffer) and it appears on the display. |
From: David K. <kle...@im...> - 2008-11-19 22:04:04
|
fbdev is the primary in-kernel generic video system. It is an alternative to the driver layer in X; that can only be used by X, which is very heavyweight -- and then X can use fbdev instead if the user just wants something that works. fbdev also provides fbcon, which is an alternative to the simple text mode console. Yes, this means that we get a console with (potentially) arbitrary resolutions and fonts. That's actually really useful when you are debugging a problem on a system causing X to not come up. More importantly, on some platforms the more basic video consoles do not work -- this is more common in embedded or esoteric (relative to x86) platforms. I don't think there is a single silver bullet -- but X and its clients are not the only software on the system that want a video display. * Chris Jones <cg...@gm...> [2008-11-18 19:22]: > I'm finding it difficult to "place" the framebuffer project. > > What is/are its objective(s)? > > Is it meant to be an alternative to X? > > Is it just a generic low-level package that complements X in the event > no specific driver for a given video chip is not available? > > Most people appear to think in a vague kind of way that the framebuffer > is just a bunch of tricks that let you use a higher resolution on the > linux console. > > This seems to make little sense in the light of all the activity on the > fbdev development list where patches (both corrections & enhancements) > are published on a daily basis. > > I just cannot imagine a number of high-end programmers spending their > time providing enhancements for the linux console - especially when you > consider how very few applications can actually run in that environment > and usually with some feature loss as compared to running them in an > xterm, for instance. > > There seems to be something much more important at stake than the linux > console but after reading the few available docs and being subscribed to > both fbdev lists for a number of years, I still don't get it. > > :-( > > Apologies if this post makes little sense to some/most.. I'm hitting a > wall and I guess that I am just too ignorant to ask the right questions. > > Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will help reformulate and maybe > come up with the question(s) I am incapable of asking. > > :-) > > Thanks! > > CJ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Linux-fbdev-users mailing list > Lin...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-fbdev-users -- David Klempner |