e in framebuffer?

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Wednesday 29 April 2009 13:04:09 Tilman Baumann wrote:
> c_c wrote:
> >  The thought came from the fact that QTE seems faster. So, if X was
> > removed
> > from the equation - how would the freerunner perform?
>
> I never felt a noticeable speed difference.

Well, I did some measurements on the GTA01 ages ago -- refer to 
http://www.vanille-media.de/site/index.php/2007/12/08/framebuffer-vs-x11/

> > with e providing a
> > reasonable
> > windowing environment,
>
> Window management on plain framebuffer? Are you sure?
> I would be very interested in learning more about this.
> My expectation would be that you still need some fb multiplexer that needs
> to be relatively smart.

This solely depends on your usecase. If you're in for single-window-single-app 
paradigm, combined with some clever logic to always show a panel, then you 
don't really need window management.

> Probably by rendering into a shared mem that gets composed to a fb frame
> by some central daemon.

If you do that, you quickly reinvent X ;)

Seriously though, some projects have gone that way (evoak, picogui, ...), but 
dropped the ball. If you really do need window managment, use X. If not, fb-
only could be a very viable alternative -- if only we had illume's 
softkeyboard working...

:M: