Re: [Linux-fbdev-users] Framebuffer - what is it?

[Russell S. <rj...@ne...>]

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.