From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theo Honohan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc! In-Reply-To: References: <200106021653.SAA25202@rackham.cd.chalmers.se> Message-Id: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:55:30 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: aed771ea-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Saturday 2 June, andrey mirtchovski wrote: > > now, how many people are interested in seeing opengl for plan9? i have that > weird idea that it may look great and actually have bragging value :) > > pros? cons? Well, getting *an* OpenGL implementation running shouldn't be hard -- the SGI reference implementation is now open, along with Mesa, and they're both in C. A GLUT implementation for Rio would be the next thing. I can see it being tougher to integrate cleanly with Rio and /dev/draw (and I expect that some degree of integration would be required to allow hardware acceleration). If you want to create a /dev/draw style "/dev/gl" file interface, you'll probably find yourself redesigning and reimplementing the GLX protocol, with a few incompatible changes. (The GLX protocol is documented in the GLX source archive available from SGI's Open Source site.) There's quite a bit of reinvention of the wheel required for you to be able run GL applications across the network in a plan 9 way. Theo