Hey gang,
Is anyone working to get Wayland working with the vmware vmwgfx
driver, or is this just a real bad idea?
Doug.
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
* Kristian Høgsberg schrieb:
> The plan I have here, and you probably saw that in the TODO, is
> to just let the client manage the entire 32 bit namespace and
> have a'bind' request:
Good idea. At this point you can also give the global objects
really names (eg. pathnames). A bind request would
* Andreas Hartmetz schrieb:
> - Have three ID ranges:
>a) for global objects
>b) for client-specific objects created by the server (do they exist?)
>c) for client-specific objects created by the client
d) reserved for future use.
Makes to extra bits.
BTW: should there be any (client
* Casey Dahlin schrieb:
> Wayland doesn't, IMHO, replace X, so much as it replaces the window
> manager. It manages to do this in a way that is clever, so much so that
> it /obviates/ X. We don't replace X, we just get rid of it and let the
> window manager do the scanout and clientside conversat
* Josh Leverette schrieb:
> Take this idea, but have it implemented in Wayland. Ideally this could be
> negotiated with the window manager so that it could be done on a per-program
> basis. When an application, such as Blender, is being used on a slow
> computer or a netbook, it might be desirabl
* Sam Spilsbury schrieb:
> It really isn't that complicated. Just make a "Netland" server which
> manages your application's buffer and transmits it across the network
> to the other Netland server which then fills the buffer on the client
> machine.
A buffer of what exactly ?
Framebuffer ?
> T
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Tom Cooksey wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> 2011/4/20 Tom Cooksey :
>> > So while I agree re-inventing something just for the sake of it is bad,
>> > that's not what's happening.
>>
>> > In fact, I think there's a good chance T
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> 2011/4/20 Tom Cooksey :
> > So while I agree re-inventing something just for the sake of it is bad,
> > that's not what's happening.
>
> > In fact, I think there's a good chance TTM will
> > be ripped out, stuck into its own driver (with its o
