-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Post by Bob Pendleton
What you just said is correct for Windows, now days. There were several
years during which that was not true for Windows. For X, well, mostly.
It depends on the drivers, now days 99% correct. If you are using direct
access to the graphics hardware it is often necessary to clean it up.
Most of you will never run into that situation, but some will.
It doesn't matter, it's still a bug in the operating system, or in X
Windows, or whatever is responsible.
Heavy sigh.... No.
First off, there are a lot of platforms that SDL runs on that are not
Windows or X based. On those platforms it is clearly not a bug in
Windows or X if things don't get cleaned up.
Like I said, you are not likely to run into things like that, but that
doesn't mean they don't exist.
Look, if the kernel failed to free heap memory that was allocated by a
process, surely you would call this a bug?
Not under Windows 3.x, nor under the early versions of MacOS. Not
releasing memory was a feature and was heavily used for interprocess
communication. What version of Windows finally did away with 16 bit
You live in a Linux/Win32 world so you don't see this kind of thing.
Doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.
If the kernel didn't close open files automatically, surely you would call
this a bug?
I've worked on so many OSes where failing to close a file meant losing
the file that while I am always thankful when the OS flushes the buffers
and closes the files, I don't expect it. And, that includes a lot of
versions of UNIX. You don't close a file, your buffers that are still in
memory get lost.
Why don't you call it a bug when e.g. the X server fails to release the
mouse grab when a client crashes? Yes, there are silly bugs like that in
That is a bug. The thing is that it can take a while for X to be sure
that the applications has crashed. So, if it just waits a while before
it, that is a design issue in the kernel.
Just because direct rendering and the like happens be slightly more complex,
that doesn't mean it's not a bug.
If you have to lie to a part of the system to do the direct rendering it
is not a bug if that part of the system doesn't know that your program
crapped out and fails to fix the stuff it was lied to about. There is a
lot of guilt to throw around when that happens, but no bug in the part
of the system that was lied to.
Oh well. The design of graphics on Linux is currently inherently unstable,
Again, no. Not inherently unstable. Stupid yes, but not inherently
and I like to rant about it. I guess I'll shut up now.
I spent about five years doing commercial ports of the X server to high
end 3D graphics systems. X is a good idea, poorly executed, that became
a religion for the Xfree86 folks. Now that X.org seems to back in charge
and Kieth Packard is leading things we have a chance to get serious
graphics on UNIX again.
People don't like to hear it, but XFree86 held back development of
decent graphics on UNIX/Linux for 10 years.
You want to rant about X feel free to email me privately, I can rant
about X with the best of them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
SDL mailing list
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +
+ email: ***@Pendleton.com +
+ blog: www.Stonewolf.net +
+ web: www.GameProgrammer.com +