Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Xen Virtual Framebuffer

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon Smirl wrote:

> On 12/5/05, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > The basic problem is running something like gdm or nautilus which want
> > to own the root X window.  You'd have to use something like Xnest.  It
> > doesn't help much with VT switching either which would be a really nice
> > feature to has.
> >    
> Xnest is the best solution for multiple root windows. With virtual
> framebuffers you are just building Xnest again via a different
> mechanism. Xnest has the advantage that you can use hardware
> acceleration from the X server in dom0.
>  
I like Xnest quite a lot.  We need something that's available when X 
isn't though (for the VT console for instance).
You certainly don't have to run X on /dev/fb0.  It's mostly to make 
text-mode and distro installation a whole lot more user friendly.
Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> > However, using remote X is a good option for a number of use-cases so
> > it's certainly appropriate for certain environments.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Anthony Liguori
> >
> > Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > I haven't tried playing with X and Xen, but why doesn't it work to
> > > just treat the multiple domains like a network? You run X in dom0 and
> > > give it full access to the video hardware. Then you ssh into each
> > > domain and start X apps, just like you do when using X remotely.
> > > OpenGL will even work this way and be accelerated (as soon as X fixes
> > > indirect acceleration). This model should let you get apps up from
> > > each domain simultaneously on the X display in dom0.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jon Smirl
> > > jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> >    
>
> --
> Jon Smirl
> jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel