What does standard OGL have that MESA does not?

As the question implies, I’m wondering, what are the benefits (technical, if any) in using an official OpenGL implementation as opposed to MESA.

Or can MESA pretty much do it all by now?

I hear that MESA is quite a bit slower, due to a few things missing around GLX, I’m not sure though.

mesa’s authors have tried to keep mesa as close to opengl as possible. so most everything should work. not sure about extensions and stuff though.

in my experience, mesa is used mostly for software rendering. i don’t believe it is supported by very many 3d cards.

i just use opengl. it’s hardware accelerated and has much wider support. mesa is good as a learning tool or to see how things work in my opinion.

Yes mesa supports just about everything except SL and pixel buffers. But nothing is done on the vid card. So it real slow compared to say Nvidas drivers. So you get the funny situation that games like quake3 think there is a valid opengl instilation with enought HW and you get like 1 FPS on a dual core 5000.

NV drivers include an opengl implemetation so i think the question is somewhat moot. However if you are into cad etc then the quadro cards accelarate a few things that other cards don’t.

The only reason it is not an official OpenGL implementation is legal. Extensions support is relatively up to date. And it is more than a learning tool, all linux installations without hardware acceleration for OpenGL use it, and there’s quite a few of those.

Both the OpenGL shading language and pixel buffer objects are supported in the latest Mesa version.