Slashdot Mirror

Just because it's a fork doesn't mean it's incompatible. Sure, some of the extra extensions may end up being incompatible- but when it comes right down to it, they're still doing X11, just as tons of other nonrelated X servers are. MetroLink's Metro-X and XiG's Accelerated-X are good examples of 3rd-party X servers, and many of the proprietary Unix vendors have their own X servers. These servers are extremely different, but they all use the X11 protocol, so though extensions may be different, apps ought to run just fine under any of them. Keith Packard's xwin isn't going to try to invent some sort of X12 protocol- it's an X11 server and thus will be compatible.

Just as Linux, BSD, SCO and a few others all provide implementations of (more or less) the "UNIX" specification on i386 hardware, there are multiple implementations of the X11R6 standard on i386-based unixes.

If you don't like XFree86, the folks at XiG would be happy to sell you a copy of AccelX. MetroLink systems still offers Metro-X (which was the bomb back in the RedHat 4 days...dunno about now), and if you don't have any money to spend, you can still download, compile and use the honest-to-god MIT/XConsortium X11R6.6 server.

If you want a windowing system that's not based on X11, your options are a bit more slender, but they're there. The Fresco project (formerly "Berlin") looks promising, as does PicoGui.

--
Evan

While the various larger distributions are geared towards multimedia functionality to different degrees, it obviously depends exactly what you want out of your box and how much you want to play with the guts (hardware and software). Many people would be happy with a DVD/VCD/mp3 player rather than a full-blown PVR, and I'm not sure how much freedom you'll get in this area with Media Center Pc's - I doubt this version of XP is designed around being able to rip, mix and burn ;) This is where some of the other Linux projects come in (some focussed on the embedded market only though). Maybe distribution in the classical sense was not the best of description for me to use, although projects like Flamethrower Linux are aiming for that - RedHat and Debian are working on multimedia based distributions, altho they are aimed more at the multimedia worker rather than player.

Projects like Dave/Dina, homeDVR, OpenPVR, MythTV and FreeVo aim at homebrew boxes somewhat akin to the Media Center idea and there are a myriad of sources for building boxes that do as much if not more than the Media Center. Flexibility is always good IMHO, and if you can start with a box that may just do DVD, DivX, CD's, mp3's and ogg, but expand it into a classic gaming machine running MAME et al as well as serving up content to the rest of your flat/house/hovel then that is "a good thing". More info at ding, eboxy.

Remember that Linux is used for commercial PVR's (and the Moxi Media Center) too and while there are companies that do these things commercially, that's normally a sign of open versions being around somewhere, especially if you like to get your hands dirty :) If you don't, then it won't be long before you new (or old) console will be able to fulfill many of these functions, again, they already can to a degree, if you don't mind hacking away a bit.

First, let me address UPnP and Microsoft. Yes, UPnP was originally conceived by MS, and MS has written themselves onto the steering committee forever. However, the UPnP membership agreement precludes any member from owning the technology outright, and says that anyone who offers technology to the forum must do so without encumberance. Even Microsoft. UPnP is NOT proprietary to MS.

Second, the technology. Everything in UPnP can be had for free. We've developed (and are successfully selling) two UPnP protocol stacks, one in ANSI C and one in Java. This was all home-grown, and we didn't need to license anything from anyone except the UPnP forum.

As mentioned before to use the technology, you need to be a UPnP Forum member. Membership is free, and the only real restriction is that anything you suggest for inclusion be done so without encumberance. Anyone can join. If you join, and don't want to donate technology, then don't bring it up. It's as easy as that.

The underlying standards are either pre-existing standards or build by the UPnP Forum. A case in point is Auto-IP, which does the ad-hoc network configuration. It's based on an IETF draft (draft-ietf-ipv4-autoconfig-05), which was originally authored by someone at Apple. I wouldn't be too surprised if it's very similar to Auto-IP. It's too bad that Apple didn't get involved earlier, we'd only have one uniform way to do this, instead of two Again, this isn't a MS invention.

There are a lot of UPnP implementations available. Intel did indeed provide a GPL protocol stack that you can download from their site. It builds on Linux nicely, and give you sample apps, etc. We have our two stacks that will begin appearing in cheap applicances Real Soon Now (tm) thanks to our silicon-builder-friends.

Alternatives to UPnP? Not really, at least not in one place. Many folks who responded to this message address only the Auto-IP part, where the box gets its IP address (FYI, Auto-IP on a net with DHCP is pretty much just DHCP). What they're missing is the juice of UPnP, where there's a protocol for device discovery and control. All the control and discovery is without any a-priori knowlege or configuration! (N.b., UPnP and Plug&Play are entirely different beasts: UPnP is on a network, Plug&Play and Kudzu are a single box)

E.g., your UPnP PVR is on a net with your UPnP phone (they're both coming). They know about each other, thanks to UPnP. Phone rings, PVR pauses automatically and puts up caller ID. You pick up the phone, talk, hang up, PVR starts again. Your washing machine tells you it's time to switch the load over, not only on the TV, but on your UPnP Zaurus or iPaq (reality today), or perhaps your electronic picture frame. You want to listen to your MP3 library from your home server. Easy. Your iPaq, Zaurus, stereo receiver, anything, knows in advance how to search for media sources, get a list of titles available, and start spooling it down. Click and go.

Our demos are much, much cooler than that even, but I don't know how much I can say.

To answer your question, sure there are alternatives, but they're in many disjoint parts. I'd suggest getting Intel's kit, and playing with it, seeing what you can do with it. Whether you do that, or play with disjoint parts, you'll be experimenting, but UPnP will take off fairly soon now.

No, none of the BSDs support binary nvidia drivers.

They have only unaccelerated OpenGL for all video cards, and there is no DVI support.

Further, FreeBSD cannot run on any form of LCD display, including laptops. For some reason, many of the more devoted FreeBSD users carry headless laptops however. The logic of this escapes me to this very day.

This is both an outright lie and a troll. The poster obviously knows nothing about FreeBSD.

Most of us use Metro X from Metrolink, available here.

Metro X offers hardware acceleration for most PCI video cards, as well as AGP Voodo 1 and 2 cards, and costs only $249. And with Metro X Professional, for only $399, 16-bit and 24-bit color modes are supported at resolutions over 800x600.

Over six laptop display chipsets are supported, and work has already begun on an nVidia TNT driver. Geforce work will begin once that is complete.

There's really no difference between Linux and FreeBSD where graphic speeds are concerned. FreeBSD does have faster TCP/IP and USB support, however. Let's see Linux touch that!

At the risk of blatantly and shamelessly plugging my employer's product: Moxi has some competition.

Well, if you mean in an overall sense (you don't want X at all), then there is Berlin, but I don't think it is very far along. If you don't like XFree86 there are some commercial X versions like MetroX. I'm sure there are more, but their name popped into my head.

If you suspect that, go get Open Motif (Connectiva is RPM, so try Metro Link's packages, which work great for me!). However, Flash for Linux is likely statically linked to Motif, because they don't expect everybody to have a copy of "Real OSF/Motif" (Lesstif just doesn't cut it when they use obscure portions of the API, as they might).

Its not really X in general thats slow its Xfree86 (which really isnt that slow) you think X is slow you might wanna try Xmetro , you will be rather suprized.

I've been to several NASA sites recently, and I can tell you that on the ground most of the machines are SGIs, presumably running IRIX.

As for the shuttle itself, the onboard computers are mostly 386s. If I remember correctly, ESR mentioned in one of his essays that NASA runs trimmed-down Linux on the integrated computers.

The computers that are used for scientific research are different for each mission. If you read Linux Journal, you're familiar with the Metro-X adds which boast that Metro-X X servers are used on the space shuttle. Therefore we can be reasonably sure that either Linux or *BSD runs on these computers at least part of the time.

Also, it should be noted that shuttle crew members are allowed to bring their own laptops onboard for personal use, presumably running whatever they please.

From the Release Notes:

Unlike XFree86 3.3.x where there are multiple X server binaries, each of
which drive different hardware, XFree86 3.9.17 has a single X server binary
(called XFree86). This binary can either have one or more video drivers
linked in statically, or, more usually, dynamically load the video drivers
and other modules that are needed.

and

The XFree86 X server has a built-in run-time loader, donated by Metro Link
http://www.metrolink.com. This loader can load normal object files and
libraries in most of the commonly used formats. Since the loader doesn't
rely on an operating system's native dynamic loader support, it works on
platforms that don't provide this feature, and makes it possible for the mod-
ules to be operating system independent (although not, of course, independent
of CPU architecture). This means that, for example, a module compiled on
Linux/x86 can be loaded by an X server running on Solaris/x86, or FreeBSD, or
even OS/2. One of the main benefits of this is that when modules are
updated, they don't need to be recompiled for each different operating sys-
tem.

This means the video drivers are standardized... Maybe this will encourage video card vendors to include an XFree86 driver along with the MS-Windows ones.

- Adi Stav

So a lot of XiG's problem with XFree86 is historical and personality-driven. The XiG marketing guys go out of their way to try and destroy XFree86, not that it's done them much good.

The other commercial X company in this space, Metro Link, is reasonably supportive of the open source community. If I were going to buy a commercial X server, I'd look there first.

So a lot of XiG's problem with XFree86 is historical and personality-driven. The XiG marketing guys go out of their way to try and destroy XFree86, not that it's done them much good.

The other commercial X company in this space, Metro Link, is reasonably supportive of the open source community. If I were going to buy a commercial X server, I'd look there first.

I use a commercial X-Server, yes I know its not free, but its cheaper then RedHat 6.0. For $39 I have Metro-X. It's a bit smoother (ie faster) then XFree86 and easier to configure. It also supports dual headed on a limited array of Matrox video cards (and maybe some others). I have 2 Millenium II's and it works great, it feeds my 15" and my new 21". Sure it has its problems... but its as good as 4.0 will be, now!

Spyky

No I am not affiliated in any way with MetroLink, they just make a nice X Server.

--L

--L

Xfree doesn't support much of the high end hardware, but the commercial X-servers do. Go to Xi for the best X-server and full OpenGL support. Metro-X is another good vendor of commercial X-servers. Not quite as good but a better bang for your buck. Their servers cost between $50 and $250 depending on what you want, but they are usually worth it. As for Hardware to get. Find out what the X-server will support and get the best one.

For OpenGL graphics, you'll need either AccelX from Xi graphics , or Metro X with one of the supported cards.

However, the accelerated versions are RSN, which is not what you want, so you may be better off looking at an old Indy or Indogo2, either from the open market, or at SGI's remanufactured products page.

MetroLink's Metro-X server claims to do it. (By claims, I mean that I have never seen it in action.) Metro-X supports Carroll Touch, EloGraphics, Lucas Deeco, and MicroTouch. I use Metro-X as my x server, and it seems pretty good. It loads much faster than XFree86.
-The Coward

MetroLink: www.metrolink.com