Slashdot Mirror

The X implementations in commercial Unix-like systems are almost all based on the X11R6.x code base that is the descendant of the MIT code. X.org is the maintainer of that code base, enhanced by a merge of code from XF86 4.4.0RC2, i.e. XF86 just before the license change. The initialization of the current X.org code repository is described here and the result of that merge was the release of X11R6.7 in April.

X.org did undergo a rather significant organizational revolution leading up to the import of the XFree86 code. They had seemed to be mostly dead for a couple of years, but in January the 'X.org foundation' was announced and they took off again. As with any corporate-born organization, they did up some slides and did a presentation.

In short: you had it a bit backwards. The 'official' X11 was a joint project (more or less...) that was pretty slow and closed for quite a while, slow and closed enough to make XF86 look dynamic and open. The various issues with XF86 (license, acceptance of patches, etc) triggered a rebirth of the X11R6 project, infused with XF86 code. Vendors of other non-Linux and non-x86 systems have nothing really to be concerned about, since they are effectively in control of X.org now as they were before.

Xorg is a fork of XFree86 due to a change in licensing on XFree86 software. Apparently the XFree license has had a 'marketing/advertising' clause added to it which may make it incompatible with the GPL. That was the straw that broke the camel's back..... From what I've read, their has been a lot of friction for a long time between XFree leadership and development community for various reasons (too many to list here). You can get the details about Xorg from here.

The X11 licence didn't change, xfree86's licence changed.

Something linux will have trouble with due to GLP vs binary drivers from NVIDIA and ATI.

I don't quite see the validity of that argument. True, the closed-source drivers are a bit of a pain, but as long as there is full OpenGL support provided by those vendors, there is nothing that prevents GPU-accelerated rendering on Linux. The bigger problem, IMHO is that - at this point in time - XFree86 is still the dominant windowing system. But the X.org implementation is likely to get a compositing extension (hopefully) in the near future (backoprted from the modular Xserver) where compositing of the backbuffer is performed by a compositing manager similar to a window manager. This compositing manager could, for example, use OpenGL to perform the compositing, and with a driver supporting the full OpenGL fragment program specification, this can all be done with vertex/pixel shader.

I've never heard of "X-Windows", but it does sound a lot like the X Window System.

my laptop has a 1920x1200 15.4" widescreen display and I paid $950 for it. If you could find a standalone display with those specs (which you can't... or at least not the last time I checked) it would cost a couple grand.

What's the letter after W?

Adobe's not gonna give you RPMs, sorry.

Why not? That is the LSB standard for installing applications on Linux.

People here bitch about Microsoft, then rip them off by stealing their taskbar, "start menu", integrated filesystem and net browser, and so forth.

Did Microsoft "innovate" these things? No - they "stole" them from other operating systems. Did you call Microsoft out for that too, or is it only Gnome and KDE developers who can't borrow ideas from other desktops? Look at this article for an example of Gnome developers trying to innovate a bit and what do you get - flames away!

One sane programming library

Right, just like the one library that exists in Mac OSX or Windows. Ooops, they have multiple libraries too. And have you noticed the freedesktop.org project to unite some of the technology behind Gnome and KDE?

The removal of X

This is such a crock of BS, and every person who tries to to explain why X should be removed comes off as someone who doesn't understand history and is doomed to repeat it. Ever wonder why every X "replacement" has flopped? Furthermore, X isn't stainding still - check X.org.

Finally, an ATTITUDE CHANGE

If you are getting flamed by zealots then maybe you need to get away from #linuxn00bs (and slashdot) and notice that there is a large mature community that uses Linux for work, and is more interested in pragmatisim than zealotry. Yes, there are zealots, but most of them are not in a real position to influence Linux adoption.

but the average user who actually buys news hardware and drivers, installs new applications and removes them, does homework, and all the other things the average computer user does these days will have tough times compared to the much easier Windows XP

Finally, something that makes sense. People are working on ideas for this, but quite frankly with device manufacturers only releasing Windows drivers and no specs it is a very difficult problem to solve. But I suppose you have ideas to contribute instead of just complaints?

X Windows? never heard of that, but X Window, i have heard of

i was under the impression that the xfree mess is to be replaced by x.org in a handful of major distros. i know gentoo has already made it's support for x.org known. there's a package for it in gentoo already (xorg-x11) as i did a quicky google search before finished this last line. :) (i couldn't find it w/ an 'emerge search' tho.)

Well, if not two, at least one letter domain names exist: how could one forget x.org?

I'm using a Matrox G550. I know, not the latest greatest 3D card, then again, I don't play games, and don't care to compete with the FPS figures of other people. Of course, there are uses for 3D graphics other than games.

If you want get a video card that has open source drivers, have a look at the list of video cards supported by the XFree86/Xwin project, and the DRI project.

Last time I looked, the ATI 9200 series of cards where the latest supported with fully open DRI drivers. Again, not the latest and greatest, still they are still available new, so they a probably adequate.

We are in a bit of a dark period at the moment with drivers. People want fast, yet the vendors aren't releasing programming specs for them. Their "Linux support" is really just lip service.

Hummm, I not sure of this... I just did some googleling and it seems that X was created in the mid-80 and Windows 1.0 was announced in 1983 (and released in 1985 and they started working on it in 1981).

The dates from x.org are not very precise, but it looks like mid-80s could be intepreted as 1985 which is 2 year after Windows 1.0 was announced.

I use Mac OS X and Linux but sometimes it is simply convenient to have a Windows computer to do some specific task

MacOS X already comes with a very nice windows system. Also, have you tried using XWindows on GNU/Linux?

I've got mod points and I would mod this story -1 troll if I could.

How about X-Lindows? I mean, it's should be sufficiently different for Microsoft not to claim trademark confusion :-)

Windows platform (X Windows)

"X Windows"? What's this, some weird custom project of yours? I haven't heard of it before.

It sounds a little like the "X Window System", but that has never had the word "Windows" (with a final "s") in its name. "Windows" is completely unambiguous when referring to software programs.

Windows is a generic English word and a generic computer marketing term.

No. The claim you're repeating was retroactively invented last year to defend Lindows' infringing on Microsoft's trademark.

Prior to Microsoft, "windows" were a minor feature of a variety of computer interaction programs. They were never used as a marketing term or the name for a whole product until Bill Gates's whiteboard.

According to the freedesktop.org page, XOrg is x.org. I quote: "The XOrg Foundation, (a.k.a. X.org) has ...". Of course, X.org is not "The XOrg Foundation", it's "The X.Org Foundation".

If I'm not mistaken, XOrg and X.org are one and the same. People are just leaving out a ".".

While UNIX-style IPC is failrly primitive, there has been a good amount of effort (esp. by the freedesktop.org folks) to recitify some of the problems you mention:

COM/DCOM/Active-X: These were designed to support GUI applications; as a result, they're pretty lightweight, but don't handle distributed applications well. CORBA, on the other hand, was designed for remove method invocation, and is really too heavy for GUI-type apps, as GNOME found out. Theres been some progress here, though: DCOP, used by KDE, is very nice; it's KParts system is the best example of its kind in Unix-land. The KDE and GNOME folks (via freedesktop) are moving towards a common protocol and desktop messaging framework, .

Window Managers vs. OOo: I'm not fully aware of the issues, but it sounds like (and wouldn't surprise me to find out that) OOo doesn't follow the well-known ICCCM protocol. There is a standard, OOo doesn't support it. Kind of like how Microdoft Office doesn't use the standard widget set of Windows.

That Java RMI "hack" comes in real handy when doing IPC operations across a heterogeneous network, btw.

The drag-and-drop argument is really getting tired. The three major DEs (KDE, GNOME, XFCE) all support the XDND protocol... This was a problem a few years ago, and mostly to those who didn't understand how X cut and selection buffers work. But now, XDND has simplified and standardized how drang-and-drop works on X clients...

I guess then it's a good thing that it's not actually named "X Windows", but rather the "X Window System."

Would that be X vs. Y debates?

I still don't get where the problem is. As I read it, these restrictions apply to redistributions of XFree86 itself, not to 3rd-party programs that link with X libraries. They can't reasonably restrict programs that link with Xlib, Xt, Xaw, etc., because these components can easily be replaced at run-time (with dynamic linking) or compile-time with any other distribution of X11R6 without modification. That's because X11R6 is a standardized protocol, and the Xlib C language binding and Xt toolkit are also open standards.

• xserver - the experimental, kdrive-based branch started by Keith Packard
• xorg - the X release of the newly-reformed X.org Foundation.

I think that the questioner has some misconceptions about "mice" as they relate to "Linux".

Mice are not (generally) programmable. You can change the way your computer programs handle the input given them by the Linux kernel from mice. Most programs do not talk to the kernel directly about mice; they use a "middleman" program, which is in most cases X (for GUI applications) or gpm.

These middleman programs have ways of swapping the meanings of the pressed buttons. The link in the parent comment shows how to do it for graphical applications running as clients to an XFree86 X server, which is likely the middleman program for the software the questioner wants to use on pretty much any stock GNU/Linux or BSD system.

Absolutely. Just like the X Window System has been for so many years now. The term "window[s]" was and still is generic to software, like if you are in the window cleaning business, the word "glass" is generic and cannot be trademarked.

Some research: freedesktop's X server is derived from x.org's and according to the developers, can't be used with XFree86 because of significant driver differences. This makes it non-trivial to get it up and running if you use Fedora, RH, Debian, or other XFree86-based distros.

It is called the X11 Windowing System...

Actually, until just a few minutes ago, I thought it was called "X". It just happens to be in version 11 (anyone else out there remember version 10? Remember all the joys that were to be had when X11 first came out?). My recollection was that the name should be "X", or "X11", but never "X Windows".

However, a quick check at the web site www.x.org shows that they call it "the X Window System":

X.Org is the worldwide consortium empowered with the stewardship and collaborative development of the X Window System technology and standards.

Now I'm confused.

And though technically, Microsoft Windows predates X-Windows by about a year

It's called the X Window System, not X-Windows.

And you can buy them here.

And, of course, it's actually the X Window System.

Actually X provides a mechanism for supporting every conceivable datatype; anyone can define a property using XInternAtom() and XChangeProperty() on an X-Window in your X application or on the root window, encoding an arbitrary datatype into the bits of the property. This is all fully described in the X design documentation. especially in Xlib C Programming X Interface, Chapter 4, Section 4.3 . See also the source code for xprop.c for a detailed example of how to use X properties.

Conclusion: You don't have to change the API of X. X is already very extendable.

Yes, since Linux is basically a copy of Unix with GUIs copied from Windows and MacOS.

OK, Linux is a copy of Windows, which is a copy of MacOS, which is itself a copy of Xerox's GUI, which was copied in the mid 80's by MIT to create the X window system for Unix, and in 1992 a free implimentation was developed called XFree86. Nope, nothing original here.

I'll give you that Microsoft frequently uses plain names for their products

Will you also ack that doing so reduces the righteousness of suing people using similar names, regardless of the other party's intent?

Microsoft isn't suing [...] about X Windows (and would be stupid to do so).

Agree, especially since there is no such thing as "X Windows". (-:

As for Stac, that's fine for you to think that they did it deliberately

If Microsoft hadn't accumulated such a rich track record of doing exactly what Stac Electronics accused them of doing, I might be tempted to allow them the presumption of innocence. But to do so in light of all that they've done would be a pretty mindless (and in some circumstances suicidal) act of pedantry.

Lastly, you can't offhandedly dismiss all of my points

It works for everyone else. (-:

Neat product. Now they just need to pay a graphic artist (and I use the term loosely) to give them a real logo).

Absolutely, but not for the purpose Microsoft intended.

In my .Xmodmap file (for XFree86 on Linux), I have the following:

keycode 64 = Alt_L
keycode 113 = Alt_R
keycode 115 = Meta_L
keycode 116 = Super_R
keycode 117 = Hyper_R

clear mod1
clear mod2
clear mod3
clear mod4
clear mod5
add mod1 = Meta_L
add mod2 = Alt_L Alt_R
add mod3 = Super_R
add mod4 = Hyper_R

With all this, the Alt keys send the left-ALT and right-ALT sequences into X (instead of Meta, which is usually the default for those keys). The left Windows key is Meta, the right Windows key is Super, and the Menu key is Hyper.

For those who don't use X11, Meta, Super and Hyper are three additional shift keys that the X11 standard specifies. A lot of software uses Meta (especially Emacs - which uses it eveywhere), but most programs do not use Super or Hyper, because most keybaords don't have those keys.

With my .Xmodmap, I get three extra shift keys that I can use when assigning keybaord shortcuts to stuff. I get Alt (which is normally not used, because the physical Alt keys are typically mapped to Meta), Super and Hyper.

I'm sure Microsoft is busy working out a way to make sure that future keyboards can't be mapped like this, but that's not my problem (yet).

I think you mean the Open Group who is now responsible for enforcing what "Unix" *is*. Not to be confused with the X Consortium, the keepers of the X11 protocol. Besides, the OP only asked about roots. :-)

The argument of "what's out there isn't good enough" doesn't fly either. You have the source to fix it and make it better!

Quick show of hands please: How many people have tried to "fix" the X Window System?

Many people feel that X11 is a bloated, unmaintainable hack. It is absolutely full of cruft.

My hope is that this effort gains enough of a foothold that it attracts developers that can put a WINE-like layer on it to translate KDE or QT calls. Then, as people migrate from lower-level toolkit libraries (Athena Widgets, TCL/TK, etc.) to higher-level libraries, it becomes simple to port their apps to an O/S like Syllable that doesn't have all the cruft that comes with an underlying X11 layer. Now, I realize that's a bit far fetched, but it is a step in what I feel is the right direction.

Yes, it is extra work to develop a new O/S, but the GNU/Linux crowd is inextricably tied to X11. If it takes a new O/S to see the benefits of a simpler graphical subsystem, then I say its worth it. DirectFB could be the answer for Linux, but doesn't get the attention or support I feel it should. (Hey, Trolltech, how about a QT port?) For those of you with your favorite X11 apps that don't have a port yet, DirectFB even has a rootless X-server.

FWIW, I use X11, but I don't program with it. Everyone I know of that does program with it complains about it. They say its bloated, difficult to program at the lower levels, and generally complain about its cruftiness. Use of higher level libraries are making these types more and more scarce, which I think is a good thing.

" But I keep getting flamed that X is good enough.. its certainly not, for a desktop system. Its overly bloated, although switching to version 4 improved things"

Not to be nit-picky.. but it's "X Window" not "X Windows". Linkage here and here.

X.org is the replacement for the old X Consortium, and it is working on new technologies for X, including the Media Application Server (MAS), a "network transparent sound protocol that runs in parallel with X to deliver the sound portion of apps."

Admittedly, it has been almost two years since X.org released X11R6.6, but work is in progress on X11R6.7.

Nobody is working on X12, because X12 implies breaking compatibility with X11, and no one has yet come up with a compelling reason to do so that can't be handled via extensions to X11.

X.org is the replacement for the old X Consortium, and it is working on new technologies for X, including the Media Application Server (MAS), a "network transparent sound protocol that runs in parallel with X to deliver the sound portion of apps."

Admittedly, it has been almost two years since X.org released X11R6.6, but work is in progress on X11R6.7.

Nobody is working on X12, because X12 implies breaking compatibility with X11, and no one has yet come up with a compelling reason to do so that can't be handled via extensions to X11.

X.org is the replacement for the old X Consortium, and it is working on new technologies for X, including the Media Application Server (MAS), a "network transparent sound protocol that runs in parallel with X to deliver the sound portion of apps."

Admittedly, it has been almost two years since X.org released X11R6.6, but work is in progress on X11R6.7.

Nobody is working on X12, because X12 implies breaking compatibility with X11, and no one has yet come up with a compelling reason to do so that can't be handled via extensions to X11.

The X consortium. The only problem is they don't allow individuals to join you have to be a corporate entity and you have to pay big bucks. The meaningful standard is Xfree86 since X.org has dropped the ball. The XFree guys are not happy about this and want X.org to be "setting the standard" and xfree86 to be implementing the standard like in the old days.

Anyway the last official documented x.org standard is here.

The X consortium. The only problem is they don't allow individuals to join you have to be a corporate entity and you have to pay big bucks. The meaningful standard is Xfree86 since X.org has dropped the ball. The XFree guys are not happy about this and want X.org to be "setting the standard" and xfree86 to be implementing the standard like in the old days.

Anyway the last official documented x.org standard is here.

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.

Nope.

Here's why.

> With the current X11R6 standard comming out 1996 I keep wondering how many of todays cool new applciations will actually work on a server offering only what is part of the standard from back then...

Where are you getting this from? The current standard (6.6), came out in 2001.

Funny thing is, the first thing I thought when I read "X vs XP" was think X vs XP. Slashdot is reading my mind!

I thought that the Disney corporate logo was a stylized Disney signature?

That seems to be their current favorite logo, but I'm sure in the past some Disney products (like their cable TV channel) were identified by 3 circles forming a mouse head, with no text.

Characters are really a special case in trademarks.

Do you have any source on this? I sure don't.

Characters aren't copyrightable, they're trademarked.

Sure, characters are copyrightable. Everything is copyrightable, since 1987. Well, any visual or audible work is copyrighted, and that includes all the characters it contains. It was only recently that characters started becoming trademarks. The first big example I can recall is George Lucas), and that seems to have been more due to the fact that each character also represented a product (an "action-figure"). Their names represented a commericial product, and thus is an identifier for "trade".

Lets check with the USPTO to see if a movie character (who wasn't made into an action figure) is trademarked: Marty McFly. Nope, although his film was. The legal reason I can't publish a comic-book adventure with Marty and Doc Brown is not that they're trademarked, but because the film I saw them in is still copyrighted.

It'd be like trying to trademark 'Car' with regards to automobiles. That dog don't hunt.

What's that supposed to mean? Disney uses an image of Mickey Mouse (in a monochrome silloette) to identify themselves in some business dealings. This is a trademark, regarding many things beyond "cartoons with Mickey Mouse" (which is hardly a product they care about, anymore). If the character became PD, I could use it in original drawings and animations- just so long as I did not attempt to cause consumers to mistake me for the Walt Disney corporation.

I'm also allowed to make pictures of Apples or Windows- and I can even use them in a computer context. Just as long as I don't name my company that, or try to confuse the public, I'm safe. And the trademark-holders aren't threatened.

(Well, mega-corps can feel threatened at anything, and may fire off lawsuits at a whim, but by legal theory, it shouldn't bother them)

Do you think there is any chance Microsoft could release GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd version of Microsoft Bob in a form of X11 window manager? It has very low system requirements (80486, 8MB RAM, 32MB HD) which makes it perfect for teaching kids the basics of computer usage (together with such projects like Debian Junior, GNU and Education, LinuxForKids, SEUL/edu, etc.) on low-end PC hardware. Some time ago, I was looking for a good window manager/desktop environment and, while there are many good applications, I couldn't find any graphical user interface itself, which would be similar to Microsoft Bob. What I need is not only something easy to learn, but also actually fun to play with, so the kids will want to learn the basics of computer science. Do you know any projects, which I could use here? (Free software would be the best.) Thanks.

Wow, did they just totally appropriate the X logo?

The problem with programming at the lower level, like Xlib, is that it takes 2 years to get the first version of your program out. Then you move on to Xt and now it only takes only 1 year. Then you move on to Motif and it only takes you 6 months. Then you move on to Qt and it only takes 3 hours. Of course you want it to look slick so you use kdelibs.