Hello,
I recently heard on the Apple x11-users mailing list that remote OpenGL
rendering (IGLX) is being phased out of XOrg and not being replaced. Is this
really the case or am I misunderstanding?
We at the national laboratories depend on this technology every day and will
need to respond to
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 16:34 +, Cook, Rich wrote:
> Hello,
> I recently heard on the Apple x11-users mailing list that remote OpenGL
> rendering (IGLX) is being phased out of XOrg and not being replaced. Is
> this really the case or am I misunderstanding?
You have heard incorrectly. It is _
Hello,
I have just discovered, through the x11-us...@lists.apple.com mailing list,
that Xorg deprecated some software component (IGLX?) necessary for remote
OpenGL viewing. Such mode of operation, using a client desktop/workstation to
connect to remote powerful HPC workstations or clusters, wit
Good morning.
I have a problem in using the X11.
Below is my /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/1-fbdev.conf.
/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/1-fbdev.conf
Section "Device"
Identifier "LCD"
Driver "fbdev"
Option "fbdev" "/dev/fb0"
Option "Rot
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:14 +0200, Laurent Lamalle wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just discovered, through the x11-us...@lists.apple.com mailing
> list, that Xorg deprecated some software component (IGLX?) necessary for
> remote OpenGL viewing.
As I just said:
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/
The point here is that today it is being *disabled* and in the future it is
completely *going away.* Anyone care to argue with that? I'd love to be wrong
about it.
> On May 26, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:14 +0200, Laurent Lamalle wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
On Thu, 26 May 2016 23:43:05 +
"Cook, Rich" wrote:
>The point here is that today it is being *disabled* and in the future
>it is completely *going away.* Anyone care to argue with that? I'd
>love to be wrong about it.
>
>> On May 26, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2
On Thu, 26 May 2016 21:56:21 -0400
Christopher Barry wrote:
>On Thu, 26 May 2016 23:43:05 +
>"Cook, Rich" wrote:
>
>>The point here is that today it is being *disabled* and in the future
>>it is completely *going away.* Anyone care to argue with that? I'd
>>love to be wrong about it.
>>
