On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Alex Deucher wrote: >Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:07:17 -0700 (PDT) >From: Alex Deucher <agd5f@yahoo.com> >To: xfree86-list@redhat.com >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >List-Id: Red Hat XFree86 list <xfree86-list.redhat.com> >Subject: Re: XFree86 3.3.6 legacy issues, and the future (was: an S3 problem) > >I realize that utah-glx was the predecessor to the DRI and only worked >with 3.3.6, but there are a few people that have ported the utah-glx 3D >stuff to Xfree 4.2. it's still utah-glx. It has not been ported to >the DRI model, so there are some issues of security and such but for >the 3D portion of the drivers. but it does provide 3D support for >several chipsets under Xfree 4.x. see the utah-glx website for more >(http://utah-glx.sf.net) and also the devel ML on the site. Indeed, it has been ported to work with XFree86 4.2.0, which is great if you've got one of those cards and want to have working 3D. However, the original discussion was about hardware which works in 2D only in XFree86 3.3.6, but which does not work well, or at all in 4.x. When 4.x is the only boy in town, and 3.3.6 is no longer supported, then someone needs to port the 3.3.6 drivers to 4.x infrastructure for them to continue to be supported. While the Utah-GLX stuff is useful for those with that hardware, it is orthagonal to the discussion of getting 3.3.6 drivers ported to 4.x. If a card doesn't work in 4.x at all, having working 3D support for it with no 2D support doesn't make much sense. ;o)
