Slashdot Mirror

So I take a look at the new license. I'm thinking "What the hell is the problem?"

So I read some comments and see this reference to a mailing list post about some of the licensing issues. In there I see things that don't exist in the license on the XFree86 site (like a reference to clause 6 even though the XF86 license only has 4 clauses).

So what's up?

So I take a look at the new license. I'm thinking "What the hell is the problem?"

So I read some comments and see this reference to a mailing list post about some of the licensing issues. In there I see things that don't exist in the license on the XFree86 site (like a reference to clause 6 even though the XF86 license only has 4 clauses).

So what's up?

On its face, the new license seems both reasonable and fair -- however, it also seems to create a lot of questions regarding how it should be interpreted and this is causing all the noise. My guess (and sincere hope) is that a clarification from, and possible minor re-write of the license by the XFree Project, Inc will clear this all up.

Second question, how does linux do with a second monitor?

Like anything with Linux, the answer is, "it depends on your distro, your [insert hardware model here] and what version of [insert relevant software here] you're running".

does it take any further customization?

Heh. Would it be Linux if it didn't? :-)

Seriously, though, check out this HOWTO. The HOWTO's title is slightly misleading in that it covers dual head configuration in addition to Xinerama (which is lucky for us).

FYI, the Xinerama extension is what allows XFree86 to support the use of multiple monitors with one desktop (e.g., you can drag your windows from one monitor to another or have them span both, etc.). In the old days, you used to have a separate X session for each monitor. Most modern session managers (GNOME, KDE, etc.) now have good support for Xinerama, but you'll need a relatively new version of XFree86 (if you have a newer version of most distros, you should already have this).

It will also help if your monitors are relatively new. If they're not, you may have to do some Googling to get the proper modelines (search for "[your monitor model] xfree86 modeline"), but for most newer monitors, this should be an issue.

Another point of recommendation: if you want hardware 3d acceleration, try and make sure all of your cards support it. Otherwise the contents of your OpenGL app windows will not display on monitors without it. Not a show-stopper, but sometimes a little confusing/annoying when you're running Blender. :-)

What were these guys thinking when they resurrected an advertising clause?

Heck, I'll stop using XFree86 just because of their UGLY logo, nevermind that it lacks features (*ahem* drop-shadows, real-time alpha blending, translucent windows...) and hasn't improved for years.

Try spending 40 hr/week looking at the 16bpp1024x768 the 4.3 frigging *vesa* driver cooks for you on a brand new i865G card!
Gagh! My eyes are bleeding so badly, I might as well have read the Windows source...

I've been waiting for i830 driver goodness all winter.

But sure, you go ahead and clear up the licence issues first.
I think I'll develop a jesus complex :-)

These claims sound really weak, from my POV. I don't know about you (all), if you've ever read the new XFree86 Project License v1.1 or not, but it's really really lesser restrictive then the GPL ever will be.

• a.I) It's consists of 4, no more no less, conditions one has to follow. 3/4 th's of them are all about "give credit, where credit is due"...
• a.II) YOU aren't not restricted that you have to distribut the source alonside your binary release, all you have to do is POINT out you're using something that is someone elses work, and POINT out who that is by insert their disclamimer in the documentation xor (and/or) other materials provided with the distribution; And also put a notice in the same place as "other copyright, license and disclaimer information".

  *yes, that's verry hard to do, mmm, </sarcasm>*, it's no more hassle that puting a 'copyright' disclaimer on something, "You put in in one place, and it's valid for the whole thing", you don't have to include it on overy *freaking page*, one place, is enough;

  But, my suspicios is (from the second part of the first claim), that they have allready send the 'STUFF' to print, or something else (like they are "lazy as french are rumored to be"-distro) if they think it's such a hassle to add one or two lines of text in two place (1st: doc or other 'materials', and 2nd: add it to the same place of 'copyright, license and disclaimer information').

  /* +plus, this condition, should appeal _very_ much to corporate users, like GFX card/chip makers, they can build inhouse drivers, incorporate their (or licensed) 'trade secretes', without having to disclose them; just as they supported the Win32/Apple Mac Os platfrom, can they now embrace *nix platform,

  Stop b*tching, will ye', and look at the big picture! Let 'them' learn the benefits of OSS on/in their own tempo - don't be/do a 'Bushie' and corner them, and say "either you are with us, or against us" </jissis> ... ever thought, your way ( I say 'your' as I'm not an endores of it) of pushing them, to disclose sources, is the cause of why we haven't seen them embrace Linux/OpenSource with unwillingness?....*/

• b.I) so, 4th conditions, is it really that of a 'biggy', to write them a formal letter for approval? to use their name in 'advertising' or 'to promote the sale' of their distro? ... if it is, maybe, they should refer to XFree86 in other words; I recall plenty of cases where I didn't get why a companey refered to sometihng so obfuscated than the thing really was. But then some day it hit me, that they musn't hade the permision to refer to 'that thing' by it's real known name.

  Yes, I can see/agree it could be a 'hassle', but, not a 'biggy' that couldn't be resolved before their development branch reaches release stage.

• c.I) "is likely not GPL-compatible".... so what you are saying, that the whole 'distribution' has to follow the GPL license, for a piece of software to get into the distro? .... I think I just scared away some corporate user, by asking that question out loud.

  *Come on* Let's get real, WE can have a distribution that has components under different licenses, *not a biggy*, you the 'distro maker' licenses your stuff under your license, and the software you incorporated from other sources licences their stuff how they seem fit. Look at an average, Apple Mac OS/Win32 desktop, it's mixed with a bunch of different licences, that the end-user has agreed to abide by.

  From my POV, it wouldn't be 'new users who switched' that would find these 'licence' stuff difficult to abide by, but more the PURE OSS minded folks, who've been around th

There is a no advertising without written permission clause. This is incompatible with the GPL

Funny, that's been in the original X11 license for a while now, and the modified BSD license, on the same page. Both of which are listed as compatible with the GPL.

the amount of work it would take to get written consent from *every* developer to put "has XFree86 4.4" on a box or on a webpage is so much a pain in the ass it's quite insane that they even added that clause.

You can write it on the box just fine, as long as you don't make it a point to differentiate your product. In any case, it's fairly trivial to just NOT WRITE IT ON THE BOX if that becomes a problem.

There is a no advertising without written permission clause. This is incompatible with the GPL

Funny, that's been in the original X11 license for a while now, and the modified BSD license, on the same page. Both of which are listed as compatible with the GPL.

the amount of work it would take to get written consent from *every* developer to put "has XFree86 4.4" on a box or on a webpage is so much a pain in the ass it's quite insane that they even added that clause.

You can write it on the box just fine, as long as you don't make it a point to differentiate your product. In any case, it's fairly trivial to just NOT WRITE IT ON THE BOX if that becomes a problem.

Release Notes for XFree86 4.4.0-RC2. Maybe it's IPv6 support, maybe autedetecion of mouse port, maybe VIA driver, maybe Mesa 5.0.2. Nothing revolutionary, I think.

Your core confusion comes from confusing what X Windows is, possibly as a result of using Microsoft Windows. Windows does a great deal to blur the lines between the graphics display layer and the widgets on top.

X Windows is (to simplify a bit) just a way to display bits on screen. Exactly what you display is left as a problem for the next layer up. This might seem odd, but it has great benefits. This means that the user interface layer (often Gnome or KDE these days) can engage in rapid change and development while the base layer (X) can sit nice and stable. Conversely, because particular widget sets and other user interface details aren't embedded into the graphics system I can pick from competing offerings.

XFree86 is mostly stable because it works fine. There have been some important developments recently (XRender, XRandR, XVideo), but on the whole we've got what we need. The user visible improvements should take place on a higher level (Gnome, KDE, etc). Those higher levels can take advantage of the stable base X provides. All that's needed are regular driver updates for new hardware as it comes out (and bug fixes as bugs become known). The X Windows standard itself is gloriously stable. It works fine, additional functionality can be (and is) provided through extensions. That stability is key to allowing higher levels in the system to experiment.

The features you want sound like great ideas (although I notice that Microsoft Windows and MacOS doesn't support the snapshot and migration functionality you want either). But they're ideas for different layers. Complaining that X should provide them is like complaining that your dashboard should provide better traction.

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.

Here is the xmodmap documentation you are looking for.

Who's to say? It hasn't been released yet.

Example Here.

Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.

As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.

The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".

Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.

Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be eith

Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.

As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.

The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".

Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.

Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be eith

XFree86 Has Not Merged With X.Org (see News)

[23 January 2004] http://www.xfree86.org/

So have they merged or not merged?

Xnest :1 -geometry 1024x768 -query localhost

Presuming that Xnest is included in your X installation and you are running a display manager (kdm, gdm or xdm for example), this will open a 1024x768 window and display a login prompt within it. You can then log in (either as the same user or as a completely different user) and use a web browser on a 1024x768 screen even though your screen is 2560x2048.

My sister-in-law uses this to see what the pages in her forthcoming web site would look like to someone browsing at that res. Her comment on 640x480 was "What is this? A thumbnail?" (-:

In short, why bother being merely as good as MS-Windows? As well as doing everything that it does, we should take note of useful things which are easy for us and impossible for the convicted monopolist.

With Xnest, as well as opening a session at a different resolution, you can also open one at a different depth. If the hardware supports it, it will be done directly otherwise it will be emulated. You can see how horrid you app looks in 16 colours, greyscale or black-and-white. If the Xnest session is larger than your physical screen, you can scroll around and see it all in chunks as big as your hardware allows.

If you want to put an MS-Windows session on your screen rdesktop 1.3 or later does full RDPv5 protocol, all depths and resolutions (plus sound, if you don't mind kissing your bandwidth farewell). If you want a copy of someone else's screen, use x2x. If you want to display stuff at a resolution or depth which you don't have, or in batch without toucing your video hardware, use Xv - take 4096x4096 screenshots on your S3-Virge-equipped machine, knock yourself out. Or use Xvnc and display to a VNC client only. And so on. I'm waiting for Xrdp to appear. (-:

Xnest :1 -geometry 1024x768 -query localhost

Presuming that Xnest is included in your X installation and you are running a display manager (kdm, gdm or xdm for example), this will open a 1024x768 window and display a login prompt within it. You can then log in (either as the same user or as a completely different user) and use a web browser on a 1024x768 screen even though your screen is 2560x2048.

My sister-in-law uses this to see what the pages in her forthcoming web site would look like to someone browsing at that res. Her comment on 640x480 was "What is this? A thumbnail?" (-:

In short, why bother being merely as good as MS-Windows? As well as doing everything that it does, we should take note of useful things which are easy for us and impossible for the convicted monopolist.

With Xnest, as well as opening a session at a different resolution, you can also open one at a different depth. If the hardware supports it, it will be done directly otherwise it will be emulated. You can see how horrid you app looks in 16 colours, greyscale or black-and-white. If the Xnest session is larger than your physical screen, you can scroll around and see it all in chunks as big as your hardware allows.

If you want to put an MS-Windows session on your screen rdesktop 1.3 or later does full RDPv5 protocol, all depths and resolutions (plus sound, if you don't mind kissing your bandwidth farewell). If you want a copy of someone else's screen, use x2x. If you want to display stuff at a resolution or depth which you don't have, or in batch without toucing your video hardware, use Xv - take 4096x4096 screenshots on your S3-Virge-equipped machine, knock yourself out. Or use Xvnc and display to a VNC client only. And so on. I'm waiting for Xrdp to appear. (-:

From xfree86.org:

XFree86 has not Merged with X.Org
[23 January 2004]

There are several news items claiming that X.Org and The XFree86 Project have merged. This is a blatant lie. The XFree86 Project remains an independent organisation, and will continue as operate as an independent organisation according to its mission statement. There has been no discussion with X.Org about any such merge, let alone any agreement to a merge.

X.Org is a vendor-sponsored organisation, formed by vendors to best suit the interests of those vendors; XFree86 is an independent volunteer organisation, with a focus on the individual. Therein lies the rub.

Just in case no one has posted on this issue.

Here is a link to XFee86.org refuting this news.

To quote:

XFree86 has not Merged with X.Org [23 January 2004] There are several news items claiming that X.Org and The XFree86 Project have merged. This is a blatant lie. The XFree86 Project remains an independent organisation, and will continue as operate as an independent organisation according to its mission statement. There has been no discussion with X.Org about any such merge, let alone any agreement to a merge. XFree86 is an independent volunteer organisation, with a focus on the individual. X.Org is a vendor-sponsored organisation, formed by vendors to best suit the interests of those vendors.

XFree86 News
23 January 2004

XWindows too - http://www.xfree86.org/4.2.0/xmodmap.1.html

There are ways to do this on versions of Windows prior to W2K but I've forgotten how. There is also a keymap for the Linux console too, for you power users.

the X video driver doesn't seem to be able to do video overlays

That laptop has a neomagic 2160 chipset.

Check out the neomagic driver manpage. The overlaymem option might be the answer to your overlay woes. Or otherwise maybe the xaa options? Try them both anyway.

only laptop kit more common running Linux than ThinkPads are Apple PowerBooks and iBooks

I don't get why someone would want to run linux on a powerbook/ibook though. I mean, linux is nice, but os x is nicer.

(SMACKS AC upside the head) Looks like a press release to me, since it is it the "News" section under "Headlines".

- no GUI for linux server on old hardware

- authentification with uncrypthed text as default

- no Kerberos support

- no smartcart authentification support

- no public key infrastructure with directory service

- no default cryptho file system

Most people are willing to accept binary drivers as an alternative to no drivers.

I think that's why we need to teach more people about the ethics that started our community and keep the Free Software community going strong even in the face of SCO questioning the validity of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Microsoft's CEOs going on speaking tours talking about how the GPL is a "cancer". I believe that people will choose to take a demonstrably ethical route to doing something when that route is also convenient. Similarly, in another vein, I think that as more people learn about Wal-Mart's employment practices and how they maintain low prices, more people realize that shopping there is sealing one's own fate.

To that end, if we had a hardware database that only listed hardware you could run entirely with Free Software, and if this database were very easy to use (even for novices), we could more easily steer people to companies that work with us. We have the beginnings of such a thing now: lists of video card chipsets that work with XFree86, scanners that work with SANE, printers that work with various Free Software drivers, but some of these are still too hard to use and they're not all found in one place. I'm not sure exactly how this new database would work, but I think one-stop-shopping is one of the highlights. I believe the Free Software Foundation wants to work on something like this, but they don't currently have the funding to do it. Perhaps someone with the hosting and space could work with them to get this going?

The last video card I bought was a Matrox G550. I don't play OpenGL based games, where high FPS mostly seems to matter, so this card is fine for "normal" 3d stuff, and provides great visual quality, which Matrox have a reputation for.

However, since that time, they've released the Parhelia, with binary only drivers (at least that is what I last found - I'm not looking for a video card at the moment, so I'm not following this sort of information all the time.). Although not ideal, at least these binary drivers are only XFree86 ones, and don't have to be installed inside the kernel, risking system stablity.

Have a browse around Direct Rendering Open Source Project as well as XFree86 for open source X Windows support

For 1000th time and this time repeat after me loudly: There is no such thing as X Windows. You probably refer to X Window System, aka. X Version 11, X11 or just plain X as described in X(7) manual page of XFree86. Thank you for learning, don't make this mistake again.

"I'm still working on a 3DFX Banshee here (voodoo 2.5) My only other cards are voodoo3's, and a card so old that its unsupported in linux(but not win98(!?))."

Not sure where you get your info, but Linux doesn't really support anything other than the basics (eg: VGA).
I think you mean XFree86... and yes, the Voodoo3 is well supported (it uses the exact same driver as the Banshee, which I also own) and has been for a very long time (note the reference to 3.3.6).

This is how [open source] software will blow X out of the water.

Huh? I thought X was an open source program.

You might be interested in this.. or this.

I believe you still need the patched agpgart w/ the precomplied binaries.

You might be interested in this.. or this.

I believe you still need the patched agpgart w/ the precomplied binaries.

I'm wondering how long before we see this in XFree86.

It probably won't go into XFree86. The freedesktop.org X server contains a rewritten core and relies on many X extensions that the XFree86 project is really not embracing. Despite the good work the XFree86 team has done over the years, they have a long history of hesitation and, even worse, conflict with those that would take XFree86 in a non-standardised direction.

I applaud the new efforts on freedesktop.org, especially by the evergreen Keith Packard, and this is what we need to see in the FLOSS world.

X11 is one of the few areas where there is no real competition between projects. Linux vs. BSDs (vs. each other) or KDE vs. GNOME. It's healthy; it pushes the projects to higher levels of progress. Once freedesktop.org's X server is ready for mass consumption (hopefully not too long) then this 'lack of competition' changes.

FLOSS will see a whole new world of graphical coolness as Window Managers and Desktop Environments add Compositing Managers to produce awesome effects using freedesktop.org's X server and the group of projects supporting it.

The freedesktop.org X server intermingles with things like Cairo and lots of other exntensions. Conversely, XFree86 seems to fight any hopeful extensions.

What will happen is that in a couple of years, many DEs and WMs will ship with a 'feature X requires freedesktop.org's X server and will not work with XFree86' and XFree86 will lose backing and momentum.

The only downside to freedesktop.org's X server is that it will no longer run well on a 20mhz 486.

Yeah, I don't care either. :)

They worked with X 4.3 (that means I had to install LTSP 4). If yours don't, try reading this random thread, then getting these drivers (who needs God, Google is much better)

No you don't. You need Xvfb, which is a headless X server (vfb stands for virtual frame buffer). The link is for the XFree86 version, but there are implementations for other platforms, including Solaris.

No you don't. You need Xvfb, which is a headless X server (vfb stands for virtual frame buffer). The link is for the XFree86 version, but there are implementations for other platforms, including Solaris.

The XFree86 server is (mainly) a set of drivers for various graphics hardware. It is possible XFree86 may not support your particular 5-button mouse. Without further information it's not possible to know. Please give the exact model name of your 5-button mouse and the exact version of XFree86 which are using.

Get them here.

Then go make your favorite compiler or windowing system work better on this.

While at one level that beats custom developing GUIs for every app and sure as hell beats the old text mode 3270 green screens, we'd all be better off if there was a "universal client" that was a step up from the browser and used a more sensible protocol, at least on intranets.

Irony is, we've had that for years already.

1. 
   
   always the first place one should start
   
   Samples#1
   
   samples#2
   
   examples#3 (part of a SVG webring)
   
   examples#4 (it also answers the question. Who uses this?)
   
   ditto#2
   
   Adobe plugin (shoots down the "hasn't been updated in years" argument)
   
   Too imature for you?
   
   Oh yeah! Immature, and it has a browser plugin too
   
   

but X ran like a champ on that Radeon.

Of course X ran fine. I've never encountered a card that X did not run fine on. It's generally other system specs that affect that.

The thing that counts, though, is 3D. From my experience, nVidia works on Linux. ATI on the other hand... well let's just say you can try. And try. And try some more.

Consider this: ATI does not have X 4.3.0 drivers on its main site, yet X 4.3.0 has been out for over 6 months. That is simply unacceptable. If more people knew about things like this they would simply not stand for it.

If you brave the drivers that are not from the official website, you'd better know what you're doing. A newbie could very easily destroy their X configuration and be stuck at a console wondering what to do. Good luck if you don't run Red Hat Linux. Ever try getting an RPM to work in Slackware?

If you want 3D in Linux, go with a vendor that supplies quality Linux drivers. nVidia is such a vendor.

I have a nice expensive (for the time) STB Video card that they abandoned awhile back. It uses the S3Trio64 chip. Most of the early S3 video cards are now abandoned by XFree86.

Not true! As of 4.3.0 the Trio chipsets ARE supported. Yes, it did take a while for the driver to be ported to the new infrastructure, but it isn't abandoned. The DAC limitations listed don't apply to the Trio since they all have integrated DACs. Only the very old cards (of which I admit to having one, a VLB 805 card) are still unsupported.

More to the point, you can install 3.3.6 on any modern Linux system in order to get support for this very old hardware, and you lose little except support for some newer extensions that would be good for little on ancient hardware anyway.

"Prove to me X exists"

OK, how's this? :o)

(Sorry, I agree with what you said, I just couldn't resist :o)

These are trying to make a difference:
Directfb, Cairo , Fresco and PicoGUI

The discussion about framebuffering was on the XFree86 open discussion mailing list last month.

What card are you using? What version of XFree? (I would expect 4.3.0)

Once you've determined what card you're using, check the XFree86 docs for your card to see if there are any known problems. Try disabling all the acceleration features and switch them back on, one at a time, until the problem re-occurs.

--

I have the following links (I'm trying to write a window manager myself... :-)
I hope these are the ones you lost:

http://www.xfree86.org//4.3.0/manindex3.html
http://tronche.com/gui/x/icccm/
http://tronche.com/gui/x/xlib/ http://x.holovko.ru/Xlib/contents.html

Hope someone finds them usefull...
Creating a window manager, is actually quiet fun, as long as you have others code to look at...

Any app that supports xft supports anti-aliased fonts. There's no reason you need KDE or Gnome support for anti-aliased fonts. As for the choice of fg/bg colors, that's always up to the user.

Thanks for the troll...

Restrictions on smoothness and responsiveness to user input are due more to driver and kernel performance characteristics than issues with X itself

This is a myth, and an XFree86 developer, board member, and one of the founders seems to agree:
I've even pissed off Keith and many others on the Core Team by pointing out that X is obsolescent. I've been working in the Windows world for years now, and client-server display systems are utterly irrelvent to the majority of real-world computer users. X needs to be replaced by a direct-rendered model, on which a backwards-compatible X server can be reasonably trivially implemented.

Nobody except people who use X over the network extensively are making claims such as yours. There are many people who do extensive GUI research and programing contradicting what you are saying. the KDE and GNOME projects have both showed interest in direct rendering models. There is a HUGE project of people doing exactly what the above link says. Implementing a direct rendered GUI with an X layer atop for remote display. There is no reason that X should treat everything (including local rendering) as a network socket connection when it can talk to the hardware directly. It is just too much overhead.

People making claims that the UNIX SOCKETS for local display don't involve overhead haven't made their evidence available. if this is true, explain yourself. There is real world proof that the DirectFB model is faster for local rendering, and until XFree86 either gets its own direct rendering model built into it for 2d rendering, and all the bells and whistles that DirectFB has (alpha blending with hardware acceleration, desktop/screen resloution switching on the fly, etc), you people claiming X's faults aren't with the protocol and implementation but with drivers are all blowing hot air.

the unix desktop CAN be faster. But X/XFree86 either needs to grow with the modern desktops, or it needs to be replaced on the desktop with something that works better. Either way, competition is a good thing, and I'm glad that DirectFB is making some headway. Porting QT/Free edition to DirectFB is going to make this competition even better, and the users will win out in the end.

I'm not bashing X here. I'm simply saying that there are better methods to locally render 2D applications. They do exist. They are being developed. The X protocol and XFree86 was designed for UNIX in a client/server networked environment. This is not how most modern computers use on their 2D desktop. I'm not saying XFree86 or the X Protocol needs to go. But if it wants to be _THE_ unix desktop for everyone, it needs to take into account the growing popularity of pure-local rendering environments. (There is no argument from me against it being _THE_ unix desktop in a client/server networked environment)