<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Choosing graphical libraries for embedded systems - Free Electrons blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://free-electrons.com/blog/elce2008-graphical-libraries/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://free-electrons.com/blog/elce2008-graphical-libraries/</link>
	<description>Embedded Linux Experts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:46:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Choosing graphical libraries for embedded systems - Free Electrons blog</title>
		<link>http://free-electrons.com/blog/elce2008-graphical-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-314</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexandre Franke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:28:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://free-electrons.com/?p=550#comment-314</guid>
		<description>There are a few other notable choices: OpenGL (and its ES version), Clutter (from OpenedHand) and EFL (Enlightenment Foundation Libraries). I can see that you’re talking about the latter two very briefly in your slides, I really think they deserved a deeper study, especially considering that you’re talking about solutions that are very little used such as Nano-X.

The work you did is interesting though, I just think that your selection should have been DirectFB, OpenGL (and/or OpenGL ES), X.org, GTK+, Qt, EFL, Clutter, FLTK, and maybe Pigment.

Also a comparison matrix at the end would have been appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are a few other notable choices: OpenGL (and its ES version), Clutter (from OpenedHand) and EFL (Enlightenment Foundation Libraries). I can see that you’re talking about the latter two very briefly in your slides, I really think they deserved a deeper study, especially considering that you’re talking about solutions that are very little used such as Nano-X.</p>
<p>The work you did is interesting though, I just think that your selection should have been DirectFB, OpenGL (and/or OpenGL ES), X.org, GTK+, Qt, EFL, Clutter, FLTK, and maybe Pigment.</p>
<p>Also a comparison matrix at the end would have been appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
