Re: gtk nano-X and gtkfb

[Paolo Molaro <lupus ximian com>]

On 03/14/01 Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes: 
> > I'd describe the nanox backend as completely broken and unmaintained.
> > 
> > We recommend the linux-fb backend; nanox is a single-process thing,
> > right, so you are using the GDK API in any case, not the nanox API. So
> > framebuffer works just as well, nanox is just bloat.
> > 
> 
> Owen says nanox does allow multiple processes, so the nanox backend is
> possibly interesting in that respect.
> 
> (But it needs a lot of work.)

I didn't update it to support pango, mostly because nano-X had
a poor font API. This may have changed in the meantime, though.
That said, multiple-process access to the display is very important
and I bet it would require as much work to add to the framebuffer port
as getting the nanox port up to speed (ie, a lot of work:-).

lupus

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lupus debian org                                     debian/rules
lupus ximian com                             Monkeys do it better