From: Aaron Van Couwenberghe <vanco@sonic.net>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:00:28 -0800

Re: Matrox G200 specs released!

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 05:35:34PM -0500, David Waite wrote:
> 
> I know I would prefer to just expose all the hardware to user space (that
> can be done securely), then writing Mesa and libggi3d support seperate. I
> haven't looked extensively on libggi3d (as last I checked it wasn't close to
> being finished, and I know that Jon stopped working on it with the Creative
> job looming), but I cannot see how adding an uneccessary layer of
> abstraction to the Mesa driver would be a benefit.

Maybe, being able to use the same drivers in two environments, using only a
*very* miniscule glue layer? This is good, *not* bad. The state of affairs
for acceleration with mesa is very bad indeed ATM.

If a ggi3d backend were created, you'd have a universal 3d acceleration
framework -- anything wanting 3d should only have to access Mesa and get
transparent 3d accel. This is what ggi3d is designed for.

-- 
..Aaron Van Couwenberghe... ..vanco@sonic.net.. ..aaronv@debian.org....
	Berlin:			http://www.berlin-consortium.org
	Debian GNU/Linux:	http://www.debian.org

"...Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing..."
	-- Ralph Waldo Emerson