From: Emanuele Aina (faina.mail@tiscali.it)
Date: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 13:28:00 CEST
Lisias Toledo sentenziò:
>>GTK+ is even worst, because it is a new API the call the Xlib API.
>>Therefore, GTK+ requires an X-Window server in order to work.>
>
> To not mentio the huge footprint.
Perhaphs you haven't read the link on Linuxdevices I have posted.
<http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9006921228.html>
It is a good comparision between embedded GUI, speaking about
Microwindows, Opengui, Picogui, Qt/E, GTKfb and GTK+/TinyX.
You may be surprised, but as a result the choice of the writer
has been GTK+ and TinyX on the framebuffer for their maturity/stability,
their low memory footprint (lower than Qt/E) and for the fact that their
source is completely free.
>> As you see, I simply removed the X Protocol, reducing X-Window
>> from a "graphics network server" to Microsoft Windows! Is that the
>> answer?
I think that, for a low powered devices, losing the possibility of
running applications on a more powerful machine in a transparent manner
it is a big disavantage.
> I think it's one of possible answers. How good is a graphics network
> server on a mono-user, mono-task enviromnent as a PDA?
Several paper seems to state that it aren't the network capabilities
of XFree to slow down apps.
-- Au revoir. Lele.. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:22 CET