Slashdot Mirror

The OP said: I don't mean to nitpick...

Sorry, but I do: it's the 'X Window System', or 'X', or 'X11'.

I'll refrain from making a comment about your nick. Oopps, sorry - looks like I have! ;-)

assuming you can have single letter domain names X.org i.am

[X] Easy to use Windowing system - KDE

KDE is not a windowing system. X is a window system, while KDE is a "graphical desktop environment" layered on top of X.

X sansKDE is easy enough to use, but looks and feels very little like MS Windows or MacOS - X provides mechanism, not policy. KDE and Gnome give you a fancy-schmancy sets of applications that share the same look and feel.

• www.q.com
• www.x.com
• www.z.com
• www.x.org

And, yes I do understand that the version number is in no way related to the fact that there is a number in the product name.

I don't understand why this is a source of cognitive dissonance for so many people.

I don't understand why you can't see why so many people think the way they have choosen to name the new OS is a little silly. Maybe you just "Think Different" than the rest of us. 8)

In the future will Mac OS X v11 be able to run X11? Will that cause confusion?

xwatchwin lets you see what is being displayed in a window on a remote X server. It doesn't let you interact or move the window, and the display isn't perfect, but it does work and it doesn't need you to set up a proxy beforehand.

hat it has to do with is that xinerama will now be part of the main X consortium's tree.

Umm, this blurb on the Xinerama task force at X.org seems to indicate that it's been "part of the main X consortium's tree" since X11R6.4.

This will (eventually) make commercial X servers (such as those in Solaris, AIX, etc.) slightly larger due to xinerama support being "backported".

Xinerama is already in Solaris 8's X server, at least according to this item on Solaris 8.

The actual item on the XFree86 Web site (go to their home page and search for "Xinerama"; the anchor tag for the Xinerama item is incorrect, with "name=anniversary", so at least with some browsers the "Xinerama" link doesn't work) says:

Public Review of the Draft Standard of the Xinerama Extension to the X Window System, sponsored by X.Org.

After its initial release, as part of X11R6.4, the Xinerama Extension API and code base splintered as many different developers ported it to their X Window System base. The Xinerama task force of X.Org has been working with a cross section of developers to create a new API that meets the needs of all, to replace the various versions currently available. The goal of this task force has been to create an API that can become an X Window System standard. The task force has been following the new Standards process defined by X.Org. The API is now at Stage 4 of that process: Public Review.

The Xinerama extension provides a mechanism for a multi-headed system to function as one large screen. Windows can span multiple screens and can move from one screen to another.

The review period for this proposed standard ends July 26, 2002. A mail list for discussion of the proposed standard has been created, xinerama-std-review@lists.sourceforge.net. This mail list is publicly available, and archived on the project website. The web site for this project is Xinerama@Sourceforge . Further documenation and code is available there.

This is the FIRST and ONLY case of XFree86 code going into the shared implementation. Previously all exchanges were bug fixes.

I don't know whether that means that code from XFree86 will be used as part or all of the implementation for the updated Xinerama, or that the item about new code going in belonged with some other item the bulk of which is missing, but I don't think the XFree86 folk originated Xinerama - they picked up their initial implementation from X11R6.4.

Um, this announcement has NOTHING to do with xfree86 tarballs. Xinerama was ALREADY THERE. What it has to do with is that xinerama will now be part of the main X consortium's tree. This will (eventually) make commercial X servers (such as those in Solaris, AIX, etc.) slightly larger due to xinerama support being "backported". Not enough so to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. It can take YEARS for X Consortium's members to get the latest code into their products.

What does that say about our geek-ness, or lack of it, when we see "H" and think heroin instead of hydrogen?

It means we know the difference between H, H+, and H2. Hydrogen, like oxygen, nitrogen, and the halogens, is diatomic, meaning that it exists in nature in pairs (Cl2 I2 F2 Br2 O2 H2 N2). In nature, it also exists as positive ions (labeled H+); Bronsted acids give off these. (Water is amphiprotic; that is, it's a weak acid and base simultaneously.)

When I see "H2", I think "hydrogen." When I see "H+", I think "hydrogen ion" and then "there's an acid somewhere around here". Plain "H" by itself is heroin, just like "X" without the "Window System".

Next they'll go after little "Evil Inside" logos that constitute fair use in free speech (as satire, political protest) as laid down by Falwell v. Flint and the First Amendment. Heck, one can make a completely valid argument that the same would apply to "Linux Inside. How can someone own a trademark on the expression of one object being within another?

"Yoga Inside" has no chance of diluting the Intel brand; however, Intel's behaviour does. Nobody's going to run around and say that they're computer is a "Yoga Inside". Your rant is spurrious.

I'm deeply suspicious of changes to trademark law. Got to love the recent changes that have been made to copyright law.

<sarcasm>Thanks, Disney!</sarcasm>. If this trademark stuff gets as out-of-whack, maybe we'll be using XPortholes instead of XWindows a few years down the road.

According to X.org, the first commercial release of the X-windows system was back in 1986. This was part of MIT's Project Athena which began in May 1983.

According to this page, Microsoft Windows 1.0 was released November 1985. It was announced in November 1983, clearly as a response to Apple's Macintosh OS.

However, according to the Wikipedia, Xerox Parc codified the WIMP paradigm (where the W stands for Windows) for their Xerox Star system released in 1981.

So, depending on how you slice it, the concept of 'windows' clearly predates MS's work on Windows and the term X-Windows refers to a product which was virtually the same age as the MS product.

That's all I got from googling around for 20 minutes. I Am Not A Historian.

I just can't believe people would want MORE government in an area where the lack of government has propelled all of our lives to higher standards.

Funny that you mention this. Modularization and simplicity is actually the main idea behind X as well. The X server only knows how to draw certain drawing primitives such as lines, boxes, circles, etc., and leaves the rest to other modules. Menus, buttons, scrollbars, etc., are handled by the widget toolkit; window borders and the user interface for moving and resizing them are left to the window manager.

Even if the main X distribution may be bloated and even if Berlin is a much better framework for building graphical environments, the ideas beind X are still simplicity and modularity.

They didn't try and build an interface for X Windows. They built one ON TOP of BSD. That's what Linux must do. We can't rely on X Windows because it has too many shortcomings.

X(1)

NAME

X - a portable, network-transparent window system

SYNOPSIS

The X Window System is a network transparent window system which runs on a wide range of computing and graphics machines. It should be relatively straightforward to build the X Consortium software distribution on most ANSI C and POSIX compliant systems. Commercial implementations are also available for a wide range of platforms.

The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software: X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11

http://freshmeat.nehtthttp:http://htthttp://freshm eat.net/lounge/projects/ hhttp://freshmeat.net/lounge/projechttp://freshmea t.net/lounge/projects/ s/ http://freshmeat.net/lounge/projects/ http://freshmeat.net/lounge/projects/ http://eat.net/lounge/projects/ freshmeat.net/lounge/projects/ //freshmeat.net/lounge/projectshttp://freshmeat.ne t/lounge/projects/ / p://freshmeat.net/lounge/projects/ t/lounge/projects/

This message was posted with Xcrap!

" Theres a core group in charge of what goes and what stays."
Actually, in Linux it's the same (f.e. Torvalds, Cox, Tosatti).

So, where the BSD team is some 10-20 people who can all get in a room and hash out details and come out with a coherent ports system, or a standard place to put software (apache goes in /var/www? Wtf patrick?), the Linux world is far too big to do that. Hell, we can't even document stuf coherently -- everything has its own man page, readme, manual, plus linux documentation project. Compare to FreeBSD's Handbook.

This is a weakness in the Linux system of cooperation. It's also a strength. Just as no one can take control of the whole thing and fix it, also nobody can break the whole thing. Even if Linux and Cox between them decided to sabotage Linux, they couldn't, whereas one guy with cvs commit privileges on cvsup.freebsd.org could give himself a root shell on every BSD box on the planet. (Okay I exaggerate -- he'd get caught, probably, but that's only because most of the people working on BSD are good guys.)

• WinAMP
• WinZip
• WinRAR
• WindowBlinds (well, it's not "Windows"...)
• WinTV

Then of course there's X-Windowing System...

Unfortunately, none of these are operating systems - they are all software packages and quite distinct from the OS to most people (er, except for WinTV, which is a hardware card). I seriously doubt "Lindows" has a leg to stand on. (I'd have named it something like "WinOnLin" or something else that gets the idea that it's a Windows emulator running on Linux, Lindows is a pretty dumb name... Although I suppose they could argue Lindows = LINux + WinDOWS, but I doubt that'll fly...)

Doesn't the X Window System", commonly refered to as "X Windows", predate Microsoft Windows 1.x by a few years a least?

Actually, it's not X Windows, but the X Window System. And actually, Microsoft Windows predates it -- Windows was released in 1983, and the X Window System's first commercial release was in 1986.

I'd guess that most product names that could help Lindows have already been submitted. Really, the name "Lindows" is pretty much doomed at this point.

Actually, it's not X Windows, but the X Window System. And actually, Microsoft Windows predates it -- Windows was released in 1983, and the X Window System's first commercial release was in 1986.

I'd guess that most product names that could help Lindows have already been submitted. Really, the name "Lindows" is pretty much doomed at this point.

I'm not sure, but isn't X-Windows trademarked?

Big precedent there. Maybe Lindows should "compel" the kettle to see whom it's calling black...

Soko

It's not illegal to be anticompetitive if you're not a monopoly.

Do you really think a software license from Apple that went, "Anyone may make any use of this software, except Microsoft employees, or contractors, who are not permitted to make any use of this software or any derivatives of this software." would be entirely kosher?

The principle that businesses should compete like runners in a race, rather than attack each other like boxers, is woven through the entire body of civil law, not just antitrust law.

A court could order you to release your source code into the public domain no matter what license you use. But only in extreme circumstances would a court do so no matter what license you chose.

The important fact here is that the GPL is only a hair away from the public domain already. Like the absurd example above, it can be interpreted as essentially "public domain for everyone (except these businesses I hate, which are only offered limited use)." Admittedly, that's an odd interpretation given the language of the GPL, but not so terribly odd after reading the "philosophy" section of the GNU home page. Intent matters.

The X11 license doesn't have an advertising clause; that's the BSD license you're thinking about.

From http://www.x.org/terms.htm referred by the GNU homepage as "The X11 License" and compatible with the GPL:

"Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder."

The name "Windows" has been used in a trademark since the release of the X Windows System in 1986, and it is held by the X Consortium (x.org).

On the other hand, take a look at Microsoft's timeline in their "museum". (Beware: Javascript and flash dependant.) They announced "Microsoft Windows" in 1983, and shipped it in 1985.

They've been fudding that long? BTW, check out their museum for a truly unuseable flash animation. If it doesn't make you throw up from motion sickness, you'll end up clicking the wrong thing or looking at the wrong page for sure.

You may also find something of interest at Xerox Parc.

That's one of my pet peeves (down, boy) with X, too. Wouldn't it be nice to have a clean, all-up, level-set version of the display engine? I understand the need for backward compatibility, but even X has had problems with that - I remember going from R3 to R4 and having to rewrite apps to avoid the new core dumps. A new, clean, high-level version of X - X12, maybe - would be nice - let the folks who want to stay backward-compatible play with X11Rn, and let the new development move to X12.

That said, do I have time to help on it? No. So - unless people start being loud over at X.org, things will remain the same - X11R6.x.n.q.1 and so on.

It's now three years later, XFree86 4.x is looking completely stable, along with LBX, RX, and a slew of other things that nobody ever uses. It is uncertain to me whether or not it will ever make a difference, at this point. At the time of LBX's birthing (early 1998), bandwidth was nearly nonexistant for everyone, and such a thing made sense for a great number of people.

That said, I'd like to use LBX. I want to run [gnutella|napster|mojonation|freenet] on a high-bandwidth linux box with a DDS-2 drive, while sitting at home behind a trio of 28.8 modems (ie, "As Good As It Gets In Rural Ohio"). Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Chevy Beretta filled to the brim with DAT carts.

I've used differential X (dxpc) with some success, but it uses particularly ugly methods of interfacing with the client software, and requires being set up before each session. I've also used ssh's gzip compression and X11 forwarding, which isn't anywhere near as fast, but is at least transparent in use.

LBX and RX/Broadway would seem to serve both purposes admirably. Too bad that in this chicken/egg scenario, the bird just won't lay any eggs.

Virtually every license I've ever read has stated "Subject to change without notice".

Including the GNU General Public License, but not including the BSD license, the X license, or the zlib license.

What bothers me most about the Open Directory license is that the requirement to keep checking back home makes the license to use a specific version of the data non-perpetual and makes the license not a free documentation license.

...and both to be hit with a suit from X.Org.

Another LHA (Lame Humour Attempt) brought to you by the letter X.

XFree86 is produced by the XFree86 Project, a separate organization with different goals. The XFree86 people do release both source code and binary releases.

(This is not to say X.org & XFree86 don't work closely together - the XFree86 Project is an honorary member of X.org, which means they get all the voting rights, without having to pay the membership fees charged to the other members.)

Metro Link maintains the official X.org master CVS repository and is responsible for putting together the official X.org releases, like last week's release of X11R6.6.

Metro Link maintains the official X.org master CVS repository and is responsible for putting together the official X.org releases, like last week's release of X11R6.6.

They're certainly not "responsible" for XFree86 or X.org, but they arep "Premier Members".

Not to be confused with the X-33 and X-34 projects.

... or the X-11 project.

not to be confused with the X-11 project.

Pope

Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!

Perhaps, but that's not the point.

Things like GTK and QT help lever programs away from the X server. Change just those and all the layers above will not notice the difference.

Not all X applications use GTK or QT, or even toolkit libraries at all! Any "X-killer" will have to accept connections from X clients. So it will have to know the X Protocol, in addition to any new "gee-whiz" features the "X-killer" has.

(SCNR - But *please* don't call XFree86 4.* "X4". X4 is something different.)

Are there any truly free desktop environments? (I mean under the BSD license)

AFAIK they're all GPLed. That is, assuming you're asking for something bigger than a window manager. If you meant just a window manager, then twm is under the X license (being part of X).

Incidentally, would you count the LGPL as "truly free", whatever you mean by that phrase?

Fuck'em all, I want my tw(v)m Coalition!
--

PostScript is a trademark of Adobe Systems, but Aladdin Enterprises (not the StuffIt maker) has produced a portable GPL'd PostScript interpreter and tools called the GhostScript package. It even includes the GhostView PDF viewer for those platforms that have X11 servers.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

It was actually released by X.org, a new organization created by the Unix vendors to further the X standard after the Open Group took over. The actual central CVS repository is being maintained by Metro Link, with changes being submitted by all the X.org members, including XFree86.

www.x.org has more details.

As for the original X developers, Jim Gettys has been mentioned recently on /. for his work with Compaq's handheld computers, and Bob Scheifler is working for Sun on Jini technology.

Actually, you can interchange KDE and GNOME applications if you have both the QT and GTK libraries installed. For example, I can run Dia or Gimp whilst using KDE. Hell, I have run KDE applications using FVWM.

Your comment is a common misconception about the power of the X windows environment. If you want to know why, read this page.

--

Or, Freedows? Or, for a completely different argument, haven't they ever heard of OpenWindows, Sun Microsystems' implementation of X11 (also, Sun's name for their OPEN LOOK desktop environment/session-manager)? Sun might consider this an abuse of their trademark (even though they're trying to sink the OPEN LOOK ship and embrace bletcherous CDE and Motif, instead).

X with an alpha channel and antialiased fonts, with full compatibility with existing clients would be yummy...

Whoah, there. Be more careful with your hypotheticals. You don't want the X Consortiom to sue you for that post.

Oh yeah, how could I forget x.org, makers of a popular windowing system for *nix? :)

Apple's closed hardware is really taking away from their chances.

Every single time Be is in the news, some /. reader bitches about "It sucks that Apple's not releasing any specs for G? hardware," not taking into account the fact that Apple Computer Inc. has released a kernel as semi-free software. What better hardware documentation is there than the commented source code to a working official kernel?

Be shouldn't let it die like NeXT did.

It never died; it just got absorbed into Mac OS 10 (which doesn't deserve an X).

I've never seen one that will reject a domain of only one character followed by a .net, .org, etc.

why would it? check out x.com and x.org

Problem: Mac OS X has a server version that collides in namespace Product with the generic name of XFree86 Project Inc.'s product, an X server. That's why I always write "Mac OS 10" and "Mac OS 10 Server".

<offtopic>
XFree86 is making an X server for Windows. I just wonder what will happen if someone decides to make an open-source Mac OS X server.
</offtopic>
See where confusion can arise?

would it be feasble to have hardware to allow 50 keyboards, mice, monitors to be hooked into a Linux server, and have each one be running separately? So there could be 50 users with 50 different displays doing their office or school work.

If you're talking text (good enough for Emacs), simply attach a whole bunch of cheap DOS PCs and monitors to a multiport serial card on the server and use them as dumb terminals.

On the other hand, if you're talking about X, that's a completely different story. Each X display pretty much needs its own computer (however, there can be multiple monitors in one display). Otherwise, how are 50 PCI cards supposed to fit into one box? And think about the CPU power it would need, not to mention heat.

But a whole bunch of cheap X boxes (not the Microsoft X-Box console; I also object to "Mac OS X") just might work.

Be thinks Apple's not releasing specs, but Be's not R.E.ing anything. What Be doesn't understand (I've mailed them about this) is that Apple provides the complete source for the kernel of Mac OS 10 (not X).

Correct. Just as sales of Micro$oft Offie fund development of the Sindows OS, sales of Mac hardware subsidize Mac OS 10. I refuse to call it X because it doesn't come with an X server, only some Display PostS#t they call Quartz.