Slashdot Mirror


New XFree86 snapshot - 3.9.17

MartinG was one of many people who wrote with the news that XFree86 has released 3.9.17. It's availible on their ftp server and features some relatively minor changes since 3.9.16. Still leading up to the promised 4 release, but that should be happening in the near future.

295 comments

  1. X development too closed by lubricated · · Score: 2

    X development is way too closed. I can get a kernel snapshot all the time but can't get a snapshot even if it has some major fixes. And too me a kernel seams a lot more critical. More stuff can go wrong with a bad kernel than a bad X server. I wish they would release what they could much more often.

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    1. Re:X development too closed by xDroid · · Score: 1
      I agree!

      The main reason I migrated to LINUX was for X.
      I like the idea of a x-Server/WM/desktop independant of the OS.
      Not that the other GUI's are bad. Just poorly implemented.

      --

      * "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker
    2. Re:X development too closed by Mandrake · · Score: 4

      If you really want more access to xfree86, just join xfree-devel, and get yourself cvs access. The reason that the source isn't more available all the time is because of NDAs that everyone is under (so xfree86 can do things like SUPPORT YOUR VIDEO CARD) things have to be done at least behind closed doors temporarily. This way vendors don't mind helping out while the drivers are in transit. And all the documentation that's included in the source code that is still proprietary information of these companies can get removed before the source is released to the public. If you want more access to the source code, it's readily available. There is information on the xfree86 web site on getting developer access to all the code. I suggest you (And everyone else who is complaining beneath your comment) go and check there, if you really want more access to the source code.
      --
      Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
      Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)

      --
      Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
      Some Random UI Hacker
    3. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video card manufacturers who require NDA's should be placed on a black list and widely published so that current and future Linux users can stay away from their products. It's bad enough that these companies don't support XFree outright, but to actually slow down and restrict development is a slap in the face!

    4. Re:X development too closed by Tarnar · · Score: 2

      Oh gawd, EVERY time an XFree discussion starts, someone says the development is too closed. You know what? Shut up. I have one word for you and it is NDA. It's not *HARD* to become a developer, and anyone who complains about it being 'too closed' has obviously not even looked INTO the subject.

      XFree is not a 'closed' development, it's a controlled one. And it has to be controlled, as NDAs exist, like them or not.

      -Posting at Score:2 just because it needs to be heard.

    5. Re:X development too closed by roystgnr · · Score: 4

      Oh gawd, EVERY time an XFree discussion starts, someone says the development is too closed.

      Yup. Often it's me. I'm happy to see people are beating me to it now.

      You know what? Shut up.

      Let me think.. No.

      But you have a nice day, too, OK?

      I have one word for you and it is NDA.

      Damn, that means I need two words to one-up you:
      Modular programming.

      You remember, that non-monolithic X Server design which is one of the biggest improvements in XFree86 4.0? If you've still got a reason why we shouldn't have, say, anonymous CVS access to the X server core and all the non-NDA drivers, then I'd like to hear it.

      It's not *HARD* to become a developer, and anyone who complains about it being 'too closed' has obviously not even looked INTO the subject.

      You don't seem to get it. I don't want to become a developer just so I can figure out why XFree86 has mouse input bugs on my machine and hardware cursor bugs on my girlfriend's. Another poster who wanted to work on Truetype support years ago didn't want to sign up to "be a developer" before he could even read a mailing list archive and see what was being worked on.

      How many people currently doing the heavy work on the Linux kernel started by saying, "You know, I want to become a full-time Linux developer?" I'd like to see numbers, but I'll bet it's not nearly as many as those who started by saying, "I wonder if there's a driver in development for my foo card,", or "This discussion of the unified page cache on linux-kernel is interesting, I think I'll pull down last week's devel source and see how it works.", or even "This looks like a bug. I think I'll check the latest source and see if it's being fixed."

      XFree is not a 'closed' development, it's a controlled one.

      Linux and FreeBSD are both controlled, but we get frequent releases (and more frequent prereleases) with the former, and anonymous CVS access with the latter.

      And it has to be controlled, as NDAs exist, like them or not.

      Needless to say, I don't. But this is a red herring; nobody said we wanted up-to-date source code on NDA'd drivers, just on the 99% of XFree86 that is free software.

      To be fair to the XFree86 developers, the 4.0 pre-releases are coming more frequently than they have in the past... but the situation still isn't as good as it should be. To be more fair to the XFree86 developers, I'll point out I think it's a shame that they are underappreciated, even as they write a successful free software project that is arguably as complicated as and more important than the Linux kernel.

      However, if they want more developers, they're not making enough of an effort to have a project that is open enough to be attractive to tenatively interested programmers.

      And they do want more developers. They're asking for them strenuously enough on the web page. What was the initial timeline I heard last year, XFree86 4.0 by June? That's not quite a 100% slip from schedule, but it's close.

      And I want them to have more developers! Between the complaints about configuring X, the emergence of DRI 3D and real GLX support, and the major architecture changes in 4.0, they've got one of the most important free software projects in existance on their hands, and I'd like to see them have every hand they can get.

      Eric Raymond always uses gcc vs. egcs and FreeBSD vs. Linux to show how even among free software, projects which are "more open" than others tend to be more successful in the long run. I don't think it's worth a code fork to find out, but it's a shame there isn't anything competing with XFree86 to provide a third example.

    6. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you still haven't made a point. You sign up for a mailing list. You get CVS access. You can *have* the code. Just because anonymous CVS access for the masses doesn't exist, that doesn't make the project 'closed'. How is it *not* open?

      You can't get up-to-the-second updates for the Linux kernel, unless you feel like merging hordes of patches from the Kernel developer list. You wait for the pre or AC patches. Granted, these patches are proliferating at least weekly, but your argument still doesn't hold.

      'Tinkering' with the latest kernel source is no differnet then 'tinkering' with the latest XFree snapshot. And in the case of XFree, you can *easily* gain CVS access. And as a side note, if you wanted to 'tinker', it'd really help to have specs to the card you may be playing with. And those usually require NDA as chip makers are needlessly anal. So I'll say it again, where are you coming from in your post?

    7. Re:X development too closed by Foogle · · Score: 2
      Yeah, god forbid someone should use any development method other than the one that you like. I understand where you're coming from, but blacklisting companies that haven't emraced open source will not encourage others to do so.

      I guess the point is, you catch more ants with honey...

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    8. Re:X development too closed by Forward+The+Light+Br · · Score: 2

      keep in mind they are allowing the drivers to be opensource, just asking that the information used to create those drivers not be distributed. It _is_ a reasonable request, as even the driver code exposes them to some risk...
      We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde

      --

      Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
    9. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eric Raymond always uses gcc vs. egcs and FreeBSD vs. Linux to show how even among free software, projects which are "more open" than others tend to be more successful in the long run.

      He may be right about gcc vs. egcs. FreeBSD vs. Linux is not so clear - neither has really beat out the other yet. But in the long term, for more 'serious' server tasks, I'd be placing my bet on FreeBSD, for the simple reason that it has a better reputation for stability than Linux, and seems to be running as many large sites as Linux, if not more. Linux has more users and developers right now, but it's not clear how many are being drawn by hype, and will abandon it when something else comes along.

      The hype is a double-edged sword: Sure, it attracts users and developers, but hype is insufficient to draw most top-quality developers or users, and many of these people will even be driven off by it. The one clear advantage that hype holds is that it attracts commercial developers to the platform. And this is, I admit, a large one.

    10. Re:X development too closed by lubricated · · Score: 1

      "You sign up for a mailing list."

      Where oh where on their website does it show a mailing list.

      You can get pre and ac patches every two days. Much more often than X.

      if I can easily gain cvs access then how come I don't have it yet. Give me directions and I'll do it. I can have a new weekly kernel just for the hell of it. I cannot get weekly snapshots unless I have a "good" enough reason

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    11. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no reasonably intelligent person would be driven off by hype. Nor would they be drawn by it. Driver support, speed, and stability are all valid reasons for OS selection. Hype is not, either for or against.

      People accuse Linux of being "Not-Windows," and its quite humorous to me that for many BSDers (but obviously not all) BSD is "Not-Linux."

      Anyone saying things like "get on the XYZ bandwagon" will be shot on sight.

    12. Re:X development too closed by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      I understand where you're coming from, but blacklisting companies that haven't emraced open source will not encourage others to do so.
      But it will. I mean, really, why wouldn't it? Do you think there are companies that would say "if they don't like us, we don't like them" and then go stomping off, never to look at Linux again? It's not like it wouldn't be clear on how you get off the blacklist.

      There are companies out there that have been quite supportive of XFree86. They should be rewarded. There are enough of these hardware manufactures that there's no need for a Linux user to ever buy anything else. So why not encourage people explicitly to buy from friendly, open companies?

      And there's some companies that have been doing the right thing for a long time, and have documented their hardware for a long time, and have been very helpful in bringing Linux to where it is now. Being so focused on the future that you don't remember who your friends are doesn't help make friends.

      Right now all the information about who's been good to Linux comes from a few remarks I've heard here and there, and a vague memory of what used to be supported a while back. I would like to know what manufacturers have had a history with Linux (including XFree86), and have been helpful providing drivers, documentation, and monitary support. I know such a list would make a big different in my buying habits. I know such things make a big difference in the quality of the drivers, and good hardware without good drivers is useless.

    13. Re:X development too closed by alhaz · · Score: 2

      To your first assertion, I'd have to say, Yes, Absolutly.

      I think not just some, but a LOT of companies are more than likely to respond to being blacklisted by saying "Yeah, who needs 'em. Bunch of pseudointelectual tightwads anyway. The real money is in Windows."

      And they'd be basicly right.

      I don't mean this to be a flame, it's just, the least effective way to get someone to agree with you is to tell them you're really angry at them and want to take your ball and go home now.

      Getting really ticked off at people and letting them know it never generated much progress in the past, don't see why it would in the future. Think about it.

      --
      This is just like television, only you can see much further.
    14. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK Jackass here you go.

      http://xfree86.org/developer.html

      That page tells you how to sign up for membership. They say they'll allow anyone who seriously wants to develop or beta test. So tell them you're serious. Have some 3D hardware? Offer to test out their new rendering structure. But first, pull your head out of your ass.

      Wanting development code 'for the hell of it' is not a good thing. People who go grab what's called unstable and then gripe about it not working suck. What's worse is how many of them do that and STILL don't report problems they find. People looking for something to do should either learn to develop or beta test for real. The first one may not be for everyone, but the second just means you need to submit some bug reports.

      So there's your CVS access. I don't know if you're 'good' enough, your attidude really doesn't imply that you are.

    15. Re:X development too closed by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      I think there's too much conciliation, though. Right now there isn't much profit in Linux. That's why we have to show them that we have memories -- and if there's a chance that Linux will be more important in the future, they'd do well to establish themselves now.

      As long as any company can make small offerings, irregardless of what they've done (or not done) before, and then get lots of good press, we're not doing ourselves service. The late comers get better publicity than small but consistently helpful hardware manufacturers.

      All this Internet investment place Linux in a situation where it could manipulate others or get manipulated. The long bet has payed off big for some, and companies are looking for the next long bet. We can use that. But as long as we approach these hardware manufacturer begging they will see us only as beggars.

    16. Re:X development too closed by .pentai. · · Score: 2

      You are forgetting something...
      Linux users are a small percentage, we don't yet have the power. Microsoft boycotts a company, the company suffers, linux boycotts a company, maybe a 1% loss?

      Something else to realize: the majority of linux boxes out there are servers...they don't use the latest and greatest video cards (do I REALLY need a GeForce256 in my mail server?)

      Boycotting a company now would just give them resentment of linux. Resentment turns to anti-linuxism, whichs turns to more "friends of microsoft"

    17. Re:X development too closed by kag · · Score: 1

      This is how we work the black list idea. Here's the plan:

      1. Ask hardware companies for needed info.

      2. Create black list accordingly.

      3. Create a press release along the lines of
      "X company is now fully supporting linux
      for their products. Unfortunatley, N
      company has turned it's nose to the Linux
      community."

      4. Publish the press release.

      5. Load http://quote.yahoo.com or http://www.CNNfn.com and watch!


      With all this linux hype the bad companies (non-open-source in this case) will really suffer.
      Stallman, RMS.. are you reading this?

    18. Re:X development too closed by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
      Exactly. "anyone who seriously wants to develop or beta test". I'm a busy person. Like many geek types, I often work 16 hour days developing a next-generation product for my employer, in hopes that at its release, I will be showered with praise, bonuses, bigger salary, and stock options. I don't have time to be a "serious" developer or beta tester of anybody else's product. I once thought in the past to join the XFree86 development team, but had the exact same problem (except I was only working 12 hour days back then!).

      I do occasionally fix bugs in other people's Open Source software, but not as a "serious" developer. Rather, I download the latest source, see if it fixes my problem, and patch it if it doesn't (and send the patches to the originator). I don't bother trying to fix the source for the "released" version of the program, because it is a duplication of effort if somebody else has already fixed that problem in the latest source, and I do NOT beta-test software that I do not have source code to -- I want to be able to pop it into gdb and do a stack trace if it core dumps, and be able to send a patch as well as a bug report to the author.

      Not that I beta test things very often. Usually it's on a whim. E.g., I downloaded the KDE 2.0 betas (1.8?) and compiled them with debugging on, simply because I was feeling frisky one Saturday afternoon. I tried it out, said "hmm, nice, we'll see what happens when the rest of the KDE programs are ported to this", and went back to KDE 1.2. But the point is that, by not requiring me to jump through hoops, this was one more eye that looked at the program. Not a seriously deep look, mind you -- I did not (and do not) have time to be a serious beta tester -- but still, eyes are eyes.

      I understand the problems that the XFree86 team faces insofar as NDA's are concerned. After all, the whole reason for forming XFree86 Inc. was to have a corporate entity that could sign NDA's with video card manufacturers. But I am telling you that this IS a reason why the XFree86 project has trouble attracting developers -- the situation adds a hoop to jump through for someone like me, who doesn't have time to be a "serious" developer. Not a seriously high hoop, but hey, I'm not being paid to develop XFree86, y'know, and any barrier at all to participation is too high a barrier for someone who wants to make an occasional casual contribution. I don't have any facile solution to the problem, certainly nothing as simplistic and moronic as "fork the project!" or "boycott NDA-requiring video card makers!". But to deny that it is a problem is to deny reality.

      -E

      --
      Send mail here if you want to reach me.
    19. Re:X development too closed by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      You know, maybe if you read over what you wrote you'll figure it out all on your own.


      Ok, done? Here's a clue: 4.0 isn't finished yet so it's not modular yet so they can't release the code as the NDA parts aren't (probably) completely separate yet.

      Why don't you just join the XFree86 team and then work toward having 4.x's all more open?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    20. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      no reasonably intelligent person would be driven off by hype.

      Sure they could. At least some intelligent people aren't going to want to be associated with kiddie zealots whose sigs contain such profound messages as death threats to Bill Gates.

      People accuse Linux of being "Not-Windows," and its quite humorous to me that for many BSDers (but obviously not all) BSD is "Not-Linux."

      At least a few, I suppose. But ask yourself this: How many BSD'rs refer to Linux as 'Linsux', or somesuch? Not many - most of those sorts of attacks come from Windows users. Now, how many Linux users refer to Windows as 'WinBlows', refer to MS as M$, or make similarly thoughtless attacks on Windows/MS/Gates?

    21. Re:X development too closed by McKing · · Score: 2
      Do you even know what the words "modular programming" mean?!?!

      The snapshots are already broken into the "main" portion of the X sever and the driver modules, i.e. there is a binary that starts up, loads the config file, loads in the appropriate module for the particular graphics card family, handles the input devices (which are also modules that can be dropped in place without recompiling the X server), and then does all the back-end work like networking, communication, image setup, etc. It then just passes the actual images to the video driver to display. The drivers are all separate from the server itself, and can be programmed independantly, compiled separately, and then dropped into place. Sound familiar? That's just how the kernel works. All the hardware drivers are modular and can be loaded/unloaded at will. There are people all over the world who are not full-time "kernel developers" who simple have an itch, pull up the source to the driver for their particular peice of hardware, maybe come up with a patch or two, and email it to the appropriate maintainer. If it works, and is good enough, it gets into the next release; if not, it gets canned or modified. This is exactly the model that Xfree should go toward (and I think/hope/expect they will shortly after the 4.0 release)

      The various modules for video, keyboard, mouse, touchpad, etc. can now all be developed separately, so that one doesn't (shouldn't is more accurate ATM) have to sign an NDA to be in on the development of the core functionality and design. Those who have the time, expertise, and interest in working on the FooX128Ultra(TM) chipset support can sign that NDA and start coding, while us regular mortals can just browse the up-to-the-minute anonymous CVS tree and see where we might want to chip in, or monitor the mailing list (read-only maybe, allow the "full developers" posting priviledges or something) to see if maybe there are areas we might be interested in, or a call for some "grunt work" like documentation or something else that even non-programmers could do.

      Anyway, I just want to put aside the debate for a moment to say that, without a doubt, multihead and Xinerama ROCK ASS (with petrified hot grits, no less!) that was just to be humorous, don't confuse me with the lame-ass firstpost/grits/petrified-and-naked people)

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
    22. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone can become an XFree86 developer. You
      just need to agree to non-disclosure first. This
      is because XFree86 developers have access to
      programming information that is under non-
      disclosure. Having members agree to non-disclosure
      is required to protect the XFree86 project. If
      the XFree86 project did not have this sort of
      development model, it would not be able to get
      programming information for alot of the hardware
      that it can get now.

      With the new modular design of 4.0, drivers can
      be maintained outside of the server tree. I
      expect this will happen eventually and the rest
      of the tree will be opened up. But this will
      definitely not happen before 4.0 as we are all
      to busy to deal with something like that now.

      Someone stated that they thought a forked,
      open branch of the server would develop more
      quickly than the main closed branch. Those of
      us who have actually done work on the server
      are chuckling at the naivity of this statement.
      XFree86 has about 600 members, of which maybe
      100 have ever contributed *anything*, and of
      which a dozen or so do 95% of the work. Even
      experienced kernel programmers who join XFree86
      find themselves overwhelmed by the scale and
      complexity of the server. From experience I can
      tell you that it takes a couple of years working
      on the server to get on top of the way things
      work.

      From what I've seen, those who are capable of
      making substantial contributions to the project
      are already members. The rest just like to
      complain about the project without having any
      "front line" experience with what X-server
      development involves.

      Mark Vojkovich
      mvojkovi@XFree86.org


    23. Re:X development too closed by lubricated · · Score: 1

      word for word from the reply

      Don't attempt to bug us to get early access to code, i.e. ask us to become a "beta tester"

      so they won't allow anyone who wants to seriously beta test. They don't allow beta testers.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    24. Re:X development too closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, THIS is word for word:

      It is very rare that we knock back membership requests, but we are looking for members who will be active in developing and/or testing rather than people simply looking for early access to new code.

      Hmmmmmmm.. You're twisting words. THAT was word for word.

    25. Re:X development too closed by lubricated · · Score: 1

      No this is.


      In some cases, the FAQ will give you the unsatisfying reply that your
      particular video card or hardware combination is "unsupported", either
      because we have no docs, or a server is not finished yet, or for any other
      reason. Don't attempt to bug us to get early access to code, i.e. ask us
      to become a "beta tester",
      or request that you want to receive a personal
      notification when a new version is available that supports your hardware.
      This is a volunteer's project, and we can neither send personal notifications,
      nor will we react to any pressure. Our WWW pages provide information about
      supported hardware for very long time already. We strongly recommend checking
      those before buying any hardware.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  2. Re:first! by fliplap · · Score: 0

    Enuf with the first port already, and if you must do it, at least use your real username. If you have to first post don't post as Anonymous Coward, let your karma suffer

  3. Re:KDE by lubricated · · Score: 1

    you are a moron. Kde runs on top of X. Which means for most that kde runs on top of XFree86. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  4. Re:KDE by jcostom · · Score: 2
    Um, KDE doesn't do much without an X display layer underneath. KDE is nothing more than a window manager/desktop environment.

    You might want to look into how this stuff works a bit more before you spout off like that...
    --

    --

    The unsig!
  5. Not to restart an old flamewar (well, maybe so...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ever-present anti-X (perhaps more appropriately, non-pro-X) rumblings seemed to get stronger a few months back, but seem to have faded to background levels since then. Has there been any *significant* progress or energies (i.e. not Berlin) towards a replacement or enhancement? Even if it's just some brain-wracking (which the Linux community could use in general, IMO) and not actual code?

  6. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you are confused about this. X is not a window manager, it's the rendering engine.

  7. [OT] An observation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I highly doubt that anyone with better things to do is going to worry about a threat from a person who mentions the brilliant invention that is Slashdot karma.

    1. Re:[OT] An observation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making death threats in your sig on a public forum prolly isn't a very good idea

      but it's just bill gates, for crying out loud. 70% of all linux users have death threats to gates in their signatures. dime-a-dozen, those death threats are.

  8. I am very happy by BriteNite · · Score: 1

    from the release notes:
    >o Add GeForce/Quadro support to the NVIDIA driver.

    has anybody tried this out yet? does it work? I'm 200 miles away from my machine, so I can't...

    1. Re:I am very happy by FORTYoz · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it works, but 3D support? Not likely.

    2. Re:I am very happy by Webmonger · · Score: 1

      has anybody tried this out yet? does it work? I'm 200 miles away from my machine, so I can't...

      Err. . . why would they release it if it didn't work?

    3. Re:I am very happy by lubricated · · Score: 1

      it's a pre-release not everything is guaranteed to work.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    4. Re:I am very happy by scherrey · · Score: 1

      Pre-release = not everything is expected to work.
      Release = not everything is guaranteed to work.

      There ain't no guarantees - expressed or implied!!

      :-)

      Check out my photography @ page.switchco.com/~image!

    5. Re:I am very happy by BriteNite · · Score: 1

      true, but it's gotta be better than the slow-as-hell-and-you-can't-change-video-modes FBDev server that I'm stuck with now.

    6. Re:I am very happy by vherva · · Score: 1

      Well, heck, why haven't you tried this then?

      http://www.s2.org/~jpaana/nv/geforce-3.3-patch.g z

      Work VERY well for me (not a single crash or malfunction) and there's a binary available too:

      http://www.s2.org/~jpaana/nv

      Now, of course, you want to try 3.9.17...

      --
      -- v --
  9. Re:KDE by Webmonger · · Score: 1

    Actually i am aware that KDE runs on top of X i gust prefer using KDE and find that KDE's feature are better that X

    That's like saying "socks are better than shoes".

  10. Re:KDE by lubricated · · Score: 0

    you cant use kde without using X. jackass

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  11. Re:KDE by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

    Actually i am aware that KDE runs on top of X i gust prefer using KDE and find that KDE's feature are better that X

    How can the features be better or worse? They're two totally different things.

    X is a display server, it manages video card and input devices.

    KDE is a window manager, is manages the look/feel of windows, their movement, etc.

    How can you say what you're saying? Window Managers cannot be better or worse then X, as they are not equal.

    Don't compare apples to oranges.

    -- iCEBaLM

  12. Re:KDE by Chris+Frost · · Score: 4

    Oh yes, kde smokes xfree...

    For those not very familar with the X Windowing System (the linux user group of north alabama has a good writeup by the way, drop by http://luna.huntsville.al.us/faq and go to the X section), a quick briefing of what makes up X:
    - X server: talks to graphics system, keyboard, mouse, etc
    - X clients: all other programs that talk and request resources from the X server
    - toolkits: scroll bars, text input, all sorts of things like this. GTK, QT, and motif are examples
    - window managers: let the user manipulate the windows present on his display. TWM, FVWM, WindowMaker, Enlightenment, KWM, etc. (KWM is KDEs window manager)

    Up until a few years ago, open source "deskop enviroments" weren't really available (GNOME and KDE are opensource examples). These enviroments often use a toolkit, consistent ui guideliness, and have methods of letting apps talk to eachother easily. They also sometimes include window managers (KDE uses KWM, and recently others can be used as well; GNOME has always sought to be "window manager independent," meaning that if you have a supported wm, you get extra features. If not, you just don't have the extra features.

    Hope that clears a few things up!
    cfrost@hiwaay.net (my domain is currently down...)

  13. Numbering by Da+Penguin · · Score: 0

    3.9.17 eh?
    Soon they will run out of numbers to go to, unless they go to hexadecimal.
    Coming soon, release 3.C.1F

    1. Re:Numbering by lubricated · · Score: 1

      no if they do need more prereleases it will be
      3.9.17 .. 3.9.19 3.9.20 .... 3.9.99 3.9.100 ...
      that will be the way it goes

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    2. Re:Numbering by Da+Penguin · · Score: 0
      But think about the second number.

      PS: It is mathematically incorrect to have multiple deciman points.

    3. Re:Numbering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programmers != Mathematicians

      So stop being anal.

    4. Re:Numbering by lubricated · · Score: 1

      3.10.1 is what it would become

      PS these are not real numbers just a way of writing versions.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    5. Re:Numbering by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      It's also mathematically incorrect that 3.10 > 3.5, (that confused me for a while :-) but since it isn't a decimal number, it doesn't really matter...

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    6. Re:Numbering by LoppEar · · Score: 1

      You may be surprised to notice two things.

      First, just as the third number has gone above one digit, the second might as well. (ie, 3.10.1). Not that I think they will, as the third number has a long way to go, and they claim to be fairly close to releasing 4.0 (which does seem to nicely follow 3.9.x).

      Second, the version number is not a mathematical value which needs to be "correct" in a numerilogical (sp) sense. Rather, think of it as three distinct numbers, using a period to delineate the numbers. The major version number, the minor version number, and the minor fix number. Merely stuck together into one symbol which represents the version. Not a number.

      LoppEar

    7. Re:Numbering by Mandrake · · Score: 3

      major.minor.patchlevel

      that's what the version number means.
      --
      Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
      Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)

      --
      Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
      Some Random UI Hacker
    8. Re:Numbering by larkost · · Score: 1

      Version numbers are not decimals, but instead are tuple numbers. Ignore that it is a period that seperates the numbers, it could be a slash, a dash, or anything else. File Paths are another form of tuples, as are IP numbers...

    9. Re:Numbering by Wokan · · Score: 1

      The periods are seperators, not decimals. We could have used dashes.
      Think of the people who write dates like 1.1.2000 or the European mathematicians who are the reverse of us "Stupid Americans".
      Where we write...
      1,000,000.4321
      they write...
      1.000.000,4321
      The only reason to choose calling X version 3.9 was to let you know that it's going to become 4.0 soon. It can go to 3.10 before 4.0 if it must, even though it throws off the illusion that 3.9.x represented.
      Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age

    10. Re:Numbering by Kyobu · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't. 3.9.x is not in the sequential order. x.9.x is a common way of saying, "This is a beta version of the next major release." If you'll notice, the current real version is 3.3.something. 3.3.5 I think. But you're right, these are just version numbers, not real numbers.

      --
      Switch the . and the @ to email me.
    11. Re:Numbering by Kyobu · · Score: 1

      3.3.5 is the current version, but according to xfree86.org, 3.3.6 "will be released in parallel with 3.9.17."

      --
      Switch the . and the @ to email me.
    12. Re:Numbering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha Ha Ha Really cool answer!! man. Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa )))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    13. Re:Numbering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunate too. A lot of self-styled self-taught "wizard" programmers could stand some education in math(or CS if you prefer; they're very similar, unless you're at devry). Not all of them mind you, but I've seen some pretty nasty uneeded hacks made in the name of speed. The kind that obfuscate the code without any real speed increase.

      Premature optimization is the root of all evil.

    14. Re:Numbering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The '.' is not a decimal point it's a separator you nitwit. Want a perfectly valid example in another context? Here you go: 1.1.2000. That's today's date. How about another: Here it is. Miss it? The period at the end of the sentence is also not a decimal point. Are sentences somehow invalid because they are not using '.' mathamatically?

      Da Pengun's Arse is more like it. Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass!

  14. personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer linux

    1. Re:personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Word is much better than Linux.

    2. Re:personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about copy con.

    3. Re:personally by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 1

      Ahh.. I remember the days of copy con :)
      Creating batch files, hoping I didn't make a typo. That's the way to live.

    4. Re:personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and then didn't edlin come out and change everything?

      Personally, I rejoyced the day the first dos with EDIT.EXE was released.

    5. Re:personally by smash · · Score: 1

      heh.

      # cat > /dev/fd0

      foo
      ctrl+d

      smash (filesystems are for weenies :P)

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it edit.com?

  15. Don't feed the trolls. by carlfish · · Score: 1

    I wish people wouldn't respond to obvious flamebait.

    Charles Miller

    --
    The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
    1. Re:Don't feed the trolls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too

  16. Re:KDE by mafried · · Score: 1

    KDE is the desktop environment. It runs on top of XFree86, which is what controls the overall graphics. When you say that KDE is better than XFree86, you must be confusing XFree86 with Gnome, another desktop environment available under and the X Window system.

  17. Re:KDE by True+Dork · · Score: 1

    Well I personally prefer using Netscape over using the Internet. I would also rather use a car than drive. On the other hand, I guess you _COULD_ load just X and have it sit there...

  18. Re:KDE by Chris+Frost · · Score: 1

    Seems text mode doesn't preserve tabs.
    Well, everything past "X clients" should be a subcatagory of it, not on the same level.

    Anyway, the html version of LUNA's X explanation (written by Jeff Gehlbach, creater of the gnu utils "--dammit" patch) is available at http://luna.huntsville.al.us/faq/faq-3.html#ss3.3 for a quick link.

    cfrost@hiwaay.net

  19. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Socks are better than shoes; they're far more comfortable. In case you're humouratically-deprived, this is my way of telling you you made a bad analogy :)

  20. DRI? by snorks · · Score: 1

    Do these development releases have the DRI architecture (direct to hardware)?

    1. Re:DRI? by CrusadeR · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      :wq
    2. Re:DRI? by FORTYoz · · Score: 2

      http://glx.on.openprojects.net

      you can do direct rendering with matrox and rage pro cards already with xfree 3.3.5

    3. Re:DRI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you can do direct rendering with matrox and rage pro cards already with xfree 3.3.5

      Yes, but that is a different approach that does not use the "DRI" in XFree86 4.0. The stuff at glx.on.openprojects.net (also known as "Utah GLX") is simple, direct-to-the-hardware, you-must-be-root-to-run-this software.

      Once XFree86 4.0 and Linux 2.4 are out, they will port their drivers to work with the "DRI", which has the advantage of allowing multiple programs to share 3D acceleration, and does not require root privileges to run with direct rendering.


      (Utah GLX allows shared access to 3D acceleration without root privileges, but cannot use direct rendering in that case, resulting in worse performance)

    4. Re:DRI? by Caballero · · Score: 2
      Yes, DRI material is included in the XFree code tree. The 3.9.16 has the basic framework, but only one limited driver. (The 3DLabs GMX 2000) 3.9.17, includes a fairly current driver for the 3dfx boards.

      The DRI work is actually being done in an open repository at http://dri.sourceforge.net. I encourage anyone interested to check out the materials there and join the development list.

      At the moment, it is probably only ready for developers (rather than end users), but we're making good progress.

      I incorporate all the public XFree snapshots into the SourceForge site, do all my work on SourceForge, and then feed patches back to XFree.

      - |Daryll

  21. Maybe someone should fork off the XF|86 tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that a new project to write X servers for Linux/FreeBSD (and others) should be started. A recent build could be taken and re-licensed under the GPL (I think the XFree license would allow this, haven't checked yet). This would allow a much more open development model and more people would be willing to work on it since the GPL gives protection from big companies such as M*crosoft stealing their code. Then we could have features such as TrueType fonts with antialiasing (FreeType supports this but X doesn't!), faster PutImage calls. With the XiG server, KDE is a lot faster than it is with the XFree86 server. This is very noticable at high resolutions, e.g. 1600x1200. On my computer, it takes about half a second to draw the backdrop with the XFree86 server. It's almost instantanious with the XiG server. Looks like bitmap drawing is really inefficient in XFree86. Maybe I am wrong and it is something like the FIFOs not being programmed correctly. (I am using a Matrox G200)

    1. Re:Maybe someone should fork off the XF|86 tree by Mandrake · · Score: 3

      you should really update to the 3.9 tree, the matrox drivers are considerably faster (especially over the ones in accelx)
      --
      Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
      Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)

      --
      Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
      Some Random UI Hacker
    2. Re:Maybe someone should fork off the XF|86 tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, XFree86 doesn't have TT fonts with antialiasing because:

      a) they require subscription to one single mailing list before giving out source, or
      b) it would require incompatible changes to the X protocol?

      ``Uh, why is your brain in a glass jar on the table?''
      ``Because you aren't allowed to bring your brain to slashdot anymore.''

    3. Re:Maybe someone should fork off the XF|86 tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the first, since the protocol can
      be enhanced.

      I work on projects as I like. I have sent in
      several Linux kernel patches, but none for X.
      I'm not about to sign up as a developer, but
      I'm likely to write some code.

      Sorry, but I won't be on your list. If that
      means we can't work together, how sad...

    4. Re:Maybe someone should fork off the XF|86 tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man X_EXT_XXX

      idiot.

    5. Re:Maybe someone should fork off the XF|86 tree by norton_I · · Score: 1

      I just got 3.9.17 built and started. The fonts are beautiful. I have a Millenium II, and it has always been reasonably fast under XF86, though.

  22. Re:KDE by HackLore · · Score: 1

    Errr....
    if you want to be picky, that's like saying shoes are more better than socks....

    but that would be picky

    Micah

  23. What's the advantage? by KnightStalker · · Score: 3

    As someone who uses X basically to run half a dozen Xterms, Netscape, and occasionally the Gimp, what's the advantage to upgrading to 4.0?

    It seems that loadable modules for font rasterizers, etc., would make the initial setup easier, but once that is up, what's the difference to someone who doesn't use 3D or any other sort of "multimedia?"

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    1. Re:What's the advantage? by bssea · · Score: 1

      Nothing as far as I know... besides adding support for more graphics cards...

      The point of XFree 4 is to add GLX/DRI support for those people that *want* 3D gaming.. if all you do is 2D apps I don't expect much to change.. maybe it'll be faster.

    2. Re:What's the advantage? by debrain · · Score: 2

      Built in TrueType font support. Direct rendering for 3D.

    3. Re:What's the advantage? by Wokan · · Score: 1

      If it has nothing you want, don't upgrade. The beauty of OSS is that nobody can really force you to upgrade. It isn't like your software will suddenly stop working.
      Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age

    4. Re:What's the advantage? by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. What does that have to do with OSS? No one can really force you to upgrade closed software either, right?

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    5. Re:What's the advantage? by Greg+Merchan · · Score: 4

      The XPM library is supposedly going to be included in 4.0. (No need to track another library.) I think there will also be more support for X apps to be run over the web, but that might be a seperate project. If this does take place, it could provide serious leverage for OS's that use X for the primary windowing system (as opposed to the X Servers that run on MS products). Remember X was designed for network computing. I'd expect to see a lot of action on this front.

    6. Re:What's the advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      Actually, yes they can. There are multiple ways:

      1. Don't create backwards compatibility.

      By doing this, customers have to upgrade because newer apps require the new X (or Windows). X doesn't do this. Windows has (3.11 -> 9x)

      2. Create new file formats

      MS does this every time they come out with a new version of Office. They don't do it for added functionality. They do it because they know exactly what will happen. Example:

      Person A has Office 95. Person B has Office 95. Person B is Person A's customer, who frequently sends documents to person A.

      Person B upgrades to Office 97. Person B is not that technical, and can't seem to figure out how to use "Save As" instead of "Save". So they send Word 97 documents to person A, who only has Word 95. Person A can't read the file.

      Person A ends up buying the newer version simply so they don't seem outdated to their client, as well as so they don't have to make it hard (in their eyes) for their clients to send them data. The same goes for Excel and such.

      As dumb as it sounds to computer literate people, this is a BIG THING in the non-techie world. I work for a very large insurance company, and we have to very strictly enforce software version guidelines to prevent hell breaking loose. If one department started using the next version before the rest, we would end up having to buy the new version if it was widespread enough. Why? Because:

      a) Normal users are too stupid to use "Save As". And don't start preaching to me that they aren't stupid. They ARE.

      b) The users who don't have the new version suddenly start whining about why they don't have the latest and greatest and why they have to go through all this trouble.

      So yes, you CAN force somebody to upgrade. MS does it all the time, in order to give incentive for people to buy their new products. All it takes is a few people to buy it initially to cause havoc, and eventually everybody has to buy it.

      Ever wonder why cars don't seem to last so long anymore like they did in way back when? It is for this same reason. Car manufacturers don't want a person to buy one car and not buy another for the next 15 or 20 years. They want people buying cars every 4 or 5 years, or sooner if possible. How do they do this? They intentionally engineer the cars to wear out just after the warranty. There are scientists devoted to finding the exact right materials with which to build car components so they last JUST beyond that 5 year warranty.

      It is called Planned Obsolecense. (sp)

    7. Re:What's the advantage? by Forward+The+Light+Br · · Score: 2

      all of these can be done is open source as well, leaving you to fork or to try to make everyone not upgrade...

      people can choose not to upgrade to close source as well, leaving the only difference being the fork...
      We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde

      --

      Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
    8. Re:What's the advantage? by penguinboy · · Score: 1
      all of these can be done is open source as well, leaving you to fork or to try to make everyone not upgrade...

      True, but OSS developers usually aren't jerks who break version compatibility just to make a few bucks (as opposed to commercial, closed source developers)

    9. Re:What's the advantage? by Fizgig · · Score: 2

      Anybody see Bill Gates on Larry King tonight? I have to say I think the man is delusional, not evil. Anyway... he started talking at one point about how 80% of their revenues come from people who already have a product buying some sort of upgrade, and that they do not force people to upgrade in any way! All the people upgrade because Microsoft has created such a substantially better product that people feel the need to upgrade for the new features. I think I laughed outloud at that one. I wish I could say that was the most blatantly false and sad thing he said in the interview, but unfortunately, it's not.

    10. Re:What's the advantage? by Trojan · · Score: 1

      But same holds for OSS, unless you want to hack the old version yourself to make it understand the new file format. But that's a lot more work than simply upgrading.

    11. Re:What's the advantage? by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1
      Funny you should say that, because I just read this on the OSS sound page:

      The evaluation copy of OSS comes with a FREE limited time evaluation license which is activated on the day you install OSS. The software will only work for a limited time and has to be unloaded and reloaded into the operating system periodically.

      So you see, you have to pay or the software *will* suddenly stop working. Though I'm sure OSS won't force upgrades that way.

    12. Re:What's the advantage? by bbcat · · Score: 1

      >Ever wonder why cars don't seem to last so long
      >anymore like they did in way back when? It is for
      >this same reason. Car manufacturers don't want a
      >person to buy one car and not buy another for the
      >next 15 or 20 years. They want people buying cars
      >every 4 or 5 years, or sooner if possible. How do
      >they do this? They intentionally engineer the
      >cars to wear out just after the warranty. There
      >are scientists devoted to finding the exact right
      >materials with which to build car components so
      >they last JUST beyond that 5 year warranty.

      This pure bulshit. Manufacturers will look for the
      cheapest material that will work for the time of
      the warranty. There is no plannned Obsolecense.
      If they were to use higher quality material the
      cars would be more expensive and people wouldn't
      buy them.

      The car buyer is just as stupid as the computer
      user, he's looking for something that is pretty,
      run fast and is cheap.

      The car manufacturer has to fullfil those wet
      dreams. They only succeed partially.

    13. Re:What's the advantage? by bbcat · · Score: 1

      My copy will work indefinetely. The upgrade licence expîres in 2001 meaning that I get
      free upgrades until then.

      The demo works for 20 minutes. That's their
      choice. If you don't like it don't buy it.

    14. Re:What's the advantage? by damyan · · Score: 1

      OSS == Open Source Software in this context.

      Not Open Sound System.

    15. Re:What's the advantage? by starling · · Score: 2

      Designing a file format to be backwards and forwards compatible isn't so difficult. I know because I've done it. One useful technique is to arrange for older versions of software to ignore parts of the file that they don't understand (by a happy coincidence this also makes the software more resistant to corrupted data files).

      The difference between OSS and proprietary code is that commercial developers have a strong financial incentive to break file compatibility in new releases, thus encouraging existing users to pay for an upgrade. Historically, this hasn't been the case for OSS applications - if anything, the incentive has been to make OSS upgrades unnecessary unless the user has a need for the new features, thus reducing support questions to the developer who, after all, is doing this for fun and doesn't want to spend endless hours providing support for users who have upgraded and now can't use their old data.

      I say "historically", because there's a danger that this may change now that companies which embrace OSS are expecting to make money from support. An easy way to ensure a steady flow of lucrative support calls is to produce a new version of an app which is incompatible with previous versions' data files. Let people donwload the new version for free and then charge them for the tech support when their old data doesn't work anymore. Ok, that's maybe a bit too cynical a view, but it'll be interesting to see how good version compatibility is in the OSS apps which are commercially sponsored.

    16. Re:What's the advantage? by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      First of all, even an evil company that does these horrible things (gasp, new file formats!) can't force you to buy new software.

      Second, you seem to think there's some sort of magical pixie dust that OSS developers sprinkle on their software that makes it immune from these same issues. To take a small example from the Lego Mindstorm world, consider the incompatibility between NQC 1.1. and 2.0 -- I don't think anyone's accusing the NQC author of evilly forcing users to upgrade. The simple truth is that introducing incompatiblity into new software is sometimes an unfortunate necessity (the grace with which this problem is handled is a good indication of the developers' skills -- consider the Office 95->97 debacle).

      Deluded thinking like this (not to mention the lunkheaded Score:3, Insightful moderation) does nothing but cast doubt on the Slashdot community's objectivity and the entire OSS movement.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  24. Re:first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears that your Slashdot karma has suffered from your attempt to convince another Slashdotter to let their karma suffer. Poetic justice?

  25. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i prefer natalie portman.

    thank you.

  26. The license is a non-issue, good point still by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3

    XFree is being developped under the BSD development model -- cathedral style -- and released under a BSD (X) license. The two are not necessarily bound.

    Apparently, the XFree developer fear that people start looking at their development sources. I remember, a few years ago, they only made time-bombed binaries available for their beta-version! Given the success that projects like Linux, KDE and Gnome have shown using a completely opposite strategy, we have every reason to believe that such a model would work better.

    And no, before someone mentions it, I'm not karma-whoring: I actually considered working on XFree, I was interested in working on TrueType support, which has been since then released. But I could'nt even find a mailing list archive from their site! So I had no way to find out what was being worked on, which issues there was, or who to contact.

    1. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by mvw · · Score: 2
      Apparently, the XFree developer fear that people start looking at their development sources.

      Nah. I joined the team recently and have not seen anything that won't show up in a release later.

      To be honnest I don't really know why the project is run this way. The reason that would make most sense to me is that this is related to meeting certain requirements of graphics board/chip manufacturers to get them to disclose information. There is a mad competition going on in that area and thus lot of paranoia.

      A related reason could be that manufacturers fear bad reputation from betas not working well with their cards. I somewhat doubt that, because today in our community only bad specs give really bad reputation.

      Of course there might be historic reasons for it as well. I remember vaguely some comments that the project had to put shields up when some external influence became too disturbing. Maybe some vet knows.

      I would like XFree86 to open up more, if possible. Related projects like Mesa and glx have had a good result while being open. In fact the new DRI project has been placed on purpose outside of the XFree86 realm to allow more people to participate (I know several folks who don't work on XFree86 because of the closed nature).

      The requirements for members are acceptable, so if that closedness is still required for dealing with the industry, another improvement to the present situation would be clear rules who can join and who can not, if such can be formulated. This would take away some arbitrariness from the brotherhood. :)

    2. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by kzin · · Score: 4

      I agree completely that XFree86 should be forked, I've had this idea for some time. It's simply that such an important system as X has only ONE alternative! (As far as that free software world is concerned). Two competing alternatives would really give both systems an edge, I think. And see what a bazaar alternative did to GCC, this would definetely be a Good Thing.

      But I disagree strongly that the forked system should be distributed under the GPL. I think starting projects is best done when licensed under the GPL, because it forces improvers to feed their improvements back into the community, and because it makes bigger step towards a free world. But I think once a project starts in a certain free license, it should stay there.

      This is because although you can take BSD code, such as XFree86, and redistribute it as GPL, you CAN'T take GPLed code, even if it originated from BSD code, and redistribute it as BSD licensed code. This means that the XFree86 group will not be able to use the changes that the new project will apply to its own code.

      I don't think that this is a nice thing to do -- the XFree86 have decided to allow this by choosing the BSD license (and I suppose they did either for ideological reasons or because they want their code to be used as widely as possible) but they HAVE contributed a lot of time and resources to create a free X implementation and we should not do anything to deny them of improvements based on their own code.

      Secondly, if a GPLed fork would succeed, it would be able to use XFree86's code and ideas but not the other way round. Eventually it would pass the XFree86 and leave it unused. On the other hand, if the fork is under the BSD license both projects will be able to use one another's code and improvements and both will become much better as a result. Maybe one of them will become better than the other due to better design, and the other will be forgotten. Or maybe either will have its own advanteges and disadvanteges, and will be used depending on the user's specialized needs.

      THIS is the kind of competition I would like to see, one that is more like the community I am a part of.


      - Adi Stav





    3. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by Daniel · · Score: 2

      Given the success that projects like Linux, KDE and Gnome have shown using a completely opposite strategy, we have every reason to believe that such a model would work better.
      Do you know, that's possibly the worst logical fallacy I've heard all week? Unless you think you've demonstrated something actually wrong with XFree's current model.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    4. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely that XFree86 should be forked, I've had this idea for some time.

      What a stupid idea! Do you really think X is trivial enough to just go do a fork and expect it to improve? All the people who have the knowledge and time to contribute something to XFree ARE ALREADY ON THE TEAM. The people who are whining about fork and the closed sourcedness of XFree just want early access to the code to play with. The last thing you want is a bunch of newbies/idiots SWAMPING the developers with stupid ass questions........

    5. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're one of those people who couldn't figure out how to log in as "Anonymous Pinhead", aren't you?

    6. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2

      My point is, until it was proven by (among others) the project I mentioned, the idea of open development (bazaar style) was contrary to most of development methodology credos. And I mentioned my own reason why it was problem. Also, having the code is interesting and educational, and so is seeing the development process. For example, I don't contribute to the linux kernel, nor do I have the skills and resources to do so, but I read the linux-kernel mailing list several times a week and learn a lot from it. When you get the resulting code, you've got what eventually works, not what was abandoned for some reason, for instance.

    7. Re:The license is a non-issue, good point still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X has a competitor that is on its way up. It's called Berlin. In the mean time, what the fsck would forking do? It's taken years and years to get so many graphic chip developers to sign on. In fact, I consider X to be one of the greatest poster children of open source. It bridges between closed hardware developers and an open community. And there is competition to X, in commercial X servers.

      Now, commercial X servers probably weren't what you had in mind, but fear not. With the new modularity of X that is emerging, soon the NDA requiring code can be put somewhere else, leaving the rest of the code base to be properly opened up.

      As for your rallying cry of 'GPL it for the people', that is the reason people like TC are so pissed at the GPL. The GPL is not for everything. Even RMS agrees, read around gnu.org for the pages on X.

  27. G200/G400 by lubricated · · Score: 2

    Will hardware accelerated 3d work with a G400 and dri in this release? Do I just use the glx module?
    Or do I download the glx module from the glx website and use that one?

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    1. Re:G200/G400 by Kev+Vance · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, the glx module is completely independent from the DRI. In fact, I think they're mutually exclusive. Until the G200 code is ported to the DRI, you should keep running 3.3.5 with Utah GLX.

      If one of the developers knows this is otherwise, please correct me (haven't been keeping up with the list :)

      --
      F0 07 C7 C8
    2. Re:G200/G400 by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

      Which glx do you mean? The one that John Carmack and others are working on, that has rage pro & g[24]00 support? Or the one that I hear comes with the Xfree86 V4 pre-releases?

      Perhaps, to avoid confusion, we should start calling these "utah-glx" (that's the name I found somewhere in their CVS module :-) and "Xfree86 glx", respectively?

    3. Re:G200/G400 by Caballero · · Score: 2
      Unfortunetly, no. The "utah-glx" (although that is a poor name it is at least unique) is completely incompatible with XFree 4.0. It would be a lot of work to incorporate it, and it would conflict with the SGI GLX that is incorporated into XFree 4.0.

      What needs to happen is for the "utah-glx" drivers to be moved to the DRI framework for use under 4.0. We've created a public open development site at http://dri.sourceforge.net for anyone who wants to work on the DRI.

      - |Daryll

  28. Yes, time to fork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is time to GPL the damn thing. XiG is ripping
    us off, along with other proprietary groups.
    I'd love to see the memory management hacks XiG
    did for speed, but they will never see the light
    of day.

    One problem though: the closed development itself!
    We'd have to abandon the new code, since it is
    currently closed-source.

    I'm sure an open development group could pass
    the closed one within a year, but XFree86 4.0
    might come out in less time -- then what?

    I see four alternatives:

    a. assume we can easily merge the new code
    b. assume that XFree86 4.0 is vaporware
    c. steal the current source: start cracking!
    d. assume 4.0 will arrive soon, so we wait

    Oh, we also need a nice new name. If we toss
    non-Linux support in favor of speed, LinWin
    would be a nice name. (X Window sounds like
    a peep show -- pay to see naked ladies)
    If non-Linux is kept, I suggest GX for a name.

    First order of business is autoconf/automake.
    Imake must die. Second order of business is
    some way to save X defaults, one way or another.
    Then antialiasing, etc... Oh, so much to do.

    1. Re:Yes, time to fork. by mce · · Score: 2
      I'm not at all sure forking would be a good idea. In part because some of the better known Linux vendors are backing XFree86 quite a bit. For a fork to be successful in the end, you'd need to convince them to switch. Possible, but definitely not trivial, I'd assume.

      In any case I'd wait for 4.0 before forking if I were you. Unless it really takes forever to turn up, that is. Forking right before the XFree86 team comes out with a major new update seems like a recipe for needles integration trouble.

      And finally: only the current copyright holders can change a license (and only if they all agree about it). Others need to stick to whatever they got in the first place.

      --

    2. Re:Yes, time to fork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >I'm sure an open development group could pass
      >the closed one within a year

      I'm pretty sure you are dead wrong.

      I think that the myth of "hoards of open source programmers" is just that -- a myth.

      The truth is that there is a limited pool of people with the necessary skills, time, and inclination to work on a project, and a project like X needs more esoteric skills than most projects.

      True, there probably are some otherwise suitable (skills and available time) developers that are not inclined to work with XFree because of the development method, but I doubt there are nearly as many people in that catagory as there are existing developers working on XFree.

      The utah-GLX project has been nice and open, but there just aren't all that many developers that are in a position to contribute significant code. (the testing and bug reports are always welcome, though!)

      Possibly a completely open X team could get bug fixed more quickly and completely due to getting more small patches, but managing a large architectural change like the current transition to 4.0 would be very difficult without the existing pool of experience held by the current XFree developers.

      (although imake is certainly a random unix crust that I wouldn't mind seeing go away..)

      John Carmack

    3. Re:Yes, time to fork. by Forward+The+Light+Br · · Score: 2

      X is not closed source.

      I like GPL, but X is traditionally under the X license (basically BSD w/o adverizing clause)

      this is why most windowmanagers are under the X license... they could go GPL at any time, but most respect the wishes of the XFree folks (and the X consortium folks above them...)

      just because it is legal doesn't mean we should do it, and oh, BTW, forking X is a HORRIBLE idea... something that complex should not start having compatibility issues!


      We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde

      --

      Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
    4. Re:Yes, time to fork. by extrasolar · · Score: 5
      "It is time to GPL the damn thing."

      The FSF advises against it. See The X Windows Trap. I quote:

      "When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, Xlib, and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The XFree86 group does an important job for the community in maintaining these programs, and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be less than the harm done by a fork in development. So it is better to work with the XFree86 group and not copyleft our changes on these programs. Likewise for utilities such as xset and xrdb, which are close to the core of X, and which do not need major improvements. At least we know that the XFree86 group has a firm commitment to developing these programs as free software."


      So if even RMS advises against GPLing the X Windows System then it is probably not a good idea ;)

    5. Re:Yes, time to fork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't feed the trolls. This was a -1 if I ever saw one.

    6. Re:Yes, time to fork. by bigchris · · Score: 1
      This isn't the way I read it... in fact RMS seems very critical of the X Consortium (and the Open Group, btw). Take for instance the following:
      Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to restrict X, someone else could have done it. Non-copylefted software is vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a non-free version dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add significantly important features using proprietary code. Users who choose software based on technical characteristics, rather than on freedom, could easily be lured to the non-free version for short-term convenience.
      .
      .
      .
      In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for inclusion in the X distributions, the GNU project will undertake to publicize copylefted packages that work with X. If you would like to copyleft something, and you worry that its omission from the X distribution will impede its popularity, please ask us to help.
      He also ends the X Windows Trap with the following:
      Friends, free software developers, don't repeat a mistake. If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community
      Of course, this is the standard RMS line, anyway, and although I don't necessarily agree with all his views he makes some valid points!
      ----
    7. Re:Yes, time to fork. by Sesse · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... If you really _are_ John Carmack, would you please mind logging in, so we don't believe it's a fake (like the person pretending to be Bruce Perens)?

      Apart from that, I agree imake could well be replaced.

      /* Steinar */

      --
      (This comment is of course GPLed.)
    8. Re:Yes, time to fork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      autoconf is much nicer

  29. XFree86 sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think that DRI is a bit disappointing. At first when there was so much hype about it, I thought it would mean that the X and OpenGL function calls would go straight to the server. When I read the technical overview at PI's web site I was disappointed because we will still have to put up with the inefficiency of sending the standard 2D commands over a UNIX domain socket and that is slow. The Microsoft Windows GUI is MUCH faster because all the graphics calls are direct and do not have to go through a pipe like X does. I'm suprised that Microsoft hasn't mentioned that in their FUD. The 'closed' development model of XFree86 only makes things work and this puts off many programmers that are uncertain whether they can make the commitment of being a 'full time' XFree86 developer (You have to do a considerable amount of work on XFree86 if you want to be a developer and have access to the latest source code). This is silly and something must be done about it and it is probably responsible for the poor quality of XFree86 when used with certain chipsets. If everyone e-mails XFree86 explaining what is wrong with their development model, I am sure that they will open it up a bit more.

    1. Re:XFree86 sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually i doubt sending it over a pipe makes much difference at all in 2D. I think you'd find X much faster if perhaps you stayed with one toolkit (less memory), which is pretty much impossible anyways since netscape uses Motif and i doubt anyone would *want* to use a Motif desktop, I prefer GTK but I find QT to be pretty damn fast at some things.

    2. Re:XFree86 sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's true then why is it FUD?

    3. Re:XFree86 sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When I read the technical overview at PI's web site I was disappointed because we will still have
      > to put up with the inefficiency of sending the standard 2D commands over a UNIX domain socket and
      > that is slow.

      OpenGL has 2D primitives as well as 3D primitives. You can do accelerated 2D graphics via OpenGL and bypass the socket in that case.

      That in fact is probably what you will want to do, because X is not designed for high performance or real-time graphics anyway. (Neither is the GUI in MS Windows...)

    4. Re:XFree86 sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too bad X performance is no where close to BEOS GUI or MAC GUI. I think its time to develop an alternative high-performance GUI.. jeez if you can't even come close with MS Windows..why bother with this X-crap???? X sucks

  30. Software announcement by Fict · · Score: 1

    We have freshmeat for software announcements. We have slashdot for news. This is a software announcement.

    ------------------

    1. Re:Software announcement by nd · · Score: 1

      It's more like this:

      Slashdot announces news and important software releases.

      Freshmeat announces software releases and important news.

    2. Re:Software announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am supposink you want money back, da?

    3. Re:Software announcement by treke · · Score: 1

      I agree for the most part on not announcing software on slashdot, but if there is a signifant piece of software released it should be put up. Xfree86 is a major component on most systems, as important as the kernel imho.
      treke

    4. Re:Software announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nyet.

    5. Re:Software announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Slashdot.org is a free service provided to you and me. And it's a good service, no arguing that. But the readers are what keeps /. alive, and the readers are the customers. We're the ones who click on the ads, and we're the ones that have showed a demand. Rob is doing everything he is doing for us. So while I can't ask for my money back, I can make suggestions to improve this free service.
      And yes, I posted this anon because I think that it will be moderated "-1 troll" like my other comment. So much for karma.
      -fict

  31. From the XFree86 web page by Hrunting · · Score: 2

    The XFree86 Project has been working very hard to get the 4.0 release out the door. It is taking a little longer than expected so we will be releasing the next pre-4.0 snapshot (3.9.17) before the end of the year. We expect to release 4.0 about two months later in mid-Q1/2000.

    XFree86 3.3.6 will be released in parallel with 3.9.17 as well.


    That means we should be getting a new version of the stable server shortly as well. Hopefully, many of the development features that can be integrated will be integrated.

    And to the naysayers, the X people do a fine job with a very old piece of software. E-mail your suggestions to them, not your complaints.

  32. Re:don't you mean edit.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    personally, I prefer XMMS over Xfree86.

    It's much better than Gnome's ESD that came with my RedHat.

  33. 3.3.6 by jazzman45 · · Score: 4

    as the homepage says, "XFree86 3.3.6 will be release in parallel with 3.9.17 as well." So expect 3.3.6 very soon, too. It'll be located here more than likely

    bye,
    -jimbo

  34. Almost, but not quite by Chris+Frost · · Score: 1

    Actually, shoes are quite usable without socks.
    For instance, people often wear sandals w/o socks. Many distance runners run without socks.

    This is closer to "A house is better than a foundation." Yes, most houses do require cement or some such foundation (where the X server would be the foundation), but some homes can be used w/o that foundation, though they do not stand up nearly as well (a mobile home for instance, which could be compared to running a qt-based program under windows).

  35. A couple of reasons... by ragnarsedai · · Score: 3

    V4 will/does have good multihead support, so you could run one server with two displays, (think ``:0.0'' and ``:0.1'').

    _Also_ there's a swell idea called 'Xinerama' that is similar to multihead (id est, it still uses several monitors), but ALL as a single DISPLAY.
    Want another xterm? Drag that man-page rxvt up to the third monitor so you can code in the tree xterms side-by-side.

    - chad
    The config file is particularly nicer to read and write, too.

    In short, there's some nice new features, but only if you're itching to use them should you change versions.

    1. Re:A couple of reasons... by Duke · · Score: 1


      V4 will/does have good multihead support, so you could run one server with two
      displays, (think ``:0.0'' and ``:0.1'').

      I think that you mean two screens, not two displays.

    2. Re:A couple of reasons... by MrHat · · Score: 1

      Does the xinerama extention in V4 support single-card multihead yet (a la the Matrox G400)? So far all of the documentation I've seen refers to an AGP/PCI combination.

    3. Re:A couple of reasons... by 1299709 · · Score: 1

      The G400's second RAMDAC is severely limited, and is not supported as a second head in 3.9.17. There are additional technical issues with how to specify the second RAMDAC in the config file that make it a bit of work to support. It will probably show up eventually, but not just yet.

      You can do 2 PCI cards too, not just AGP/PCI. (That's what I have.)

      Also, there are some AGP cards with several G200's (for example) on a single card that may be supported (there seem to be some BIOS issues just now).

  36. Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We have freshmeat for software announcements. We have slashdot for news.

    And slashdot has comments so people [like you] can parade their [stultified] wit and [complete lack of] sophistication in a public forum.

    Not everybody reads freshmeat; too much stuff with too little relevance. Yes, Slashdot covers news. However, this software announcement is (gasp) news. Get a grip.

    1. Re:Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much stuff because they announce all sort of shits. Lots of little scripts. Uh. When you want to see a good announcement you have to scroll down 50 pages.

  37. Two words: network transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    There are several extensions already present in XFree86 which do exactly what you're complaining about. The XDGA extension allows programs to bypass X and write directly to the hardware, and the XShm (or MIT-Shm) extention allows X and a program to share a segment in memory which the program writes to and X writes to the screen.

    Your first argument also has nothing to do with XFree86, it's an argument against the X protocol. With the power of current systems, trading the network transparency provided by X for a small increase just seems dumb. You might be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of your P75, but you certainly wouldn't notice it on a PII 400. The one place it is logical to make this trade is with games. That's where the previously mentioned extensions come in.

    On the other hand, I agree with you about the XFree86 developement model. X would certainly benefit from a more open developement model. Forking the tree would be a great way to piss off all the people who have been working for so long to provide a free (speech) X Server for us, but it would do little to make us a better X Server. A much better idea is to simply let them know we would like to see a more open development model.

    1. Re:Two words: network transparency by Emil+Brink · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this just isn't true. On my machine at work (a nice AMD Athlon 550), dragging windows around is noticeably faster in Win NT than it is in Linux/X. That's sad, but true. Still, I might agree that for 3D, the need to get rid of the pipe bottleneck is larger.

      --
      main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
  38. YES, help the berlin!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://berlin.benham.net http://www.ggi-project.org/ also, look http://www.opengl.org i'm coward not Coward.

    1. Re:YES, help the berlin!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you're dumb. Thanks for trying. You named *ONE* alternative to X, Berlin. GGI is a graphics API, as is OpenGL. In fact, OpenGL is now tied to X (GLX). So bugger off.

    2. Re:YES, help the berlin!!! by cob2k25 · · Score: 1

      the new screenshot looks impressive!

      i followed this project for a while and it's very nice to see some results..


      spé


    3. Re:YES, help the berlin!!! by damyan · · Score: 1

      OpenGL is now tied to X? Huh! How about actually looking at www.opengl.org?

    4. Re:YES, help the berlin!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee.. so SGI released GLX so you could talk out your ass? OpenGL.org is generally a commercially geared site, aiming at CAD designers and what not. Mesa is a free OpenGL work-alike. GLX is a layer of abstraction exists that makes putting GL graphics on your X session easier.

      'Tied' was a bad choice of words by the previous AC, but OpenGL itself does not aim to be a replace X and what not. In fact, commercial X servers that use OpenGL to extend 3D functionality are nothing new. So educate yourself first before slandering the AC. OpenGL is a 2D/3D *API*. Not a graphics display system. You'd do well to read opengl.org yourself.

    5. Re:YES, help the berlin!!! by damyan · · Score: 1

      I see someone you're really brave hiding behind the cover of AC.

      Have you visited opengl.org recently? Did you *really* read the post I was replying to? Do you know anything about Berlin?

      The least story on OpenGL is:

      "Aftershock open-source QA3-like rendering engine using OpenGL"

      I've been coding in OpenGL for the last 3 months now, so don't try and tell me I don't know what it is.

  39. Look Berlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://berlin.benham.net

    1. Re:Look Berlin by VinceJH · · Score: 1

      Doesn't berlin use corba for all of it's widgets? Would that also be a little slow? Not like it really matters, I doubt either (XF864.0 or Berlin) will be much slower than windows.

      --
      I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
  40. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to flame, but what fool moderated this comment as "Interesting?" *sigh*

  41. XFree86 v4 is rewritten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if not, i havb no ineteresting. silly news.

  42. 3.9.17 is much more modular by kzin · · Score: 5

    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

    1. Re:3.9.17 is much more modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standardized, and that they can be distributed in binary (As I understand). Remember, this is a informative post, not a politically. Use them if you like, don't use them if you dont.

    2. Re:3.9.17 is much more modular by zero-one · · Score: 2

      A possible down side to binary video drivers is more closed source stuff. This could be good in that it gives vendors a way to have their kit supported in a way that they are more comfotable with (and therefore quicker development) but it might not help everyone else.

      Kernel traffic / the linux kernel mailing list makes some intresting points about binary drivers.

      From my point of view, binary == good as we get drivers quicker but if the driver as a anoying flaw there is very little that can be done about it (with out reinventing the wheel).

  43. Re:Not to restart an old flamewar (well, maybe so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.berlin-consortium.org/

  44. Re:Not to restart an old flamewar (well, maybe so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't he just say 'not Berlin'?

  45. Clean up the code base!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing should be done is to clean up the code base. There are full of nonsense in the base code now.

    you can only archive a better server with a piece of good looking source code. X Window is huge. Make it maintainable. XFree86 cannot maintain it now. All they can do is keeping delay the beast.

  46. so.... whats your point? by digitalunity · · Score: 1

    I personally appreciate having big software announcements on slashdot. I check slashdot more often than freshmeat and don't mind being notified of something big like that. So how 'bout you just sit there, not like the software announcement, and keep it to yerself. 'kay?

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    1. Re:so.... whats your point? by Elbereth · · Score: 0

      So, basically, what you're saying is that you
      like the status quo because you're lazy.

      Personally, I'd rather see Slashdot stick to
      interviews with cracking groups, links to sites
      that are overloaded, and whiny stories about how
      hard life is for high school kids. That way, I
      know I won't miss anything interesting, but there'll
      still be something there to read when I get bored.

    2. Re:so.... whats your point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to read Slashdot? Did they put your 'nads in a vice and threaten to squash 'em if you didn't click on this story?

      If you don't care to read a particular story, do like the rest of us do and DON'T CLICK ON IT!!!



      If you don't like the way Slashdot does things you have 4 choices:
      1.ignore the stories you don't want to read

      2.submit stories you want to read about

      3.make intelligent suggestions to Rob and Hemos to make Slashdot better, or just......

      ....4.GO THE FUCK AWAY!!













      I suggest you try #4 first.....

  47. You're forgetting file interchange... by Wokan · · Score: 1

    Try telling your boss that Office 6 is just fine and not to upgrade to Office 2000. Then go update your resume.
    Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age

  48. Re:KDE by mcc · · Score: 1

    your post reminds me of those times when people my parents knew would find out i was a computer person, and their eyes would light up, and they would immediately start asking me for help. I had a lot of people ask me which they should use to "browse the internet": AOL, Yahoo, Netscape, or [insert here the name of some ISP they heard a radio commercial for]..

    think.

  49. Did Slashdot just step sideways? by ajs · · Score: 5

    Is this a change-of-year thing? I'm seeing people posting "XFree86 sucks because I'm not on the development team", "XFree86 sucks because I don't like UNIX domain sockets", "KDE smokes X"

    And these are the ones that got moderated UP?!

    Look, first, if you don't like the way development is going, grab the source, and do it yourself. Don't necessarily fork the entire project, just take over your corner, and do whatever you like. Keep it in CVS, and merge the new releases in on a vendor branch.

    Second, four letters: XSHM

    Third, KDE is several layers above X, and requires X to run, so what the heck do you mean SMOKES?

    Please, people, do try to pull it together, here.

    Imminent demise of Slashdot predicted. Film at 11.

  50. Someone didn't spend much time reading... by John+Fulmer · · Score: 5

    PI's web site. Here's a rundown from one of their graphics It lists several different paths through the X system that can be programmed for.

    3D Direct Rendering

    -Raw OpenGL compat Rendering Library -> Hardware
    -GLX/DRI -> Kernel Module -> Hardware
    -XLib -> X Transport -> X Server -> Hardware

    X11 2D (Normal X)

    -XLib -> X Transport -> X Server -> Hardware

    3D Indirect Rendering

    GXLib -> X Transport -> X server -> Hardware
    XLib -> X Transport -> X Server -> Hardware

    So while, yes 2D is done the same old way, There are many new 3D options available, including bare wire access to the hardware.

    Two items on the NT video subsystem:

    Note that one of NT's major sources of instabilities is in its video drivers. Any wrong call inside the driver can and does blue screen the box. With X's user-space model, this can't happen easily. There is a trade off on performance, but with X you get stability, multiple screens, and native network windowing, with the tradeoff being in having to use an asynchronous display instead of a synchronous display. (Displaying graphics synchronously gives faster graphics at the expense of CPU)

    Also note that DRI is essentially an improved version of SGI's GLX implementation on Irix (SGI's version of Unix), which ABSOLUTELY SMOKES 3D rendering on NT, on neo-equivalent boxes. If you've never seen 3D done on a SGI O2 or better, you haven't seen good 3D. X isn't such a dog then... :)

    jf

  51. vendors won't be interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If vendors start to make XFree86 drivers, they'll do it because of Linux, and nothing else. They won't give a shit if it runs on Solaris or FreeBSD, because Linux is what gets the hype. If some vendor makes a driver using the new architecture, I even expect them to call it a "Linux driver". Wanna bet?

    1. Re:vendors won't be interested by Forward+The+Light+Br · · Score: 4

      but that is the great thing, the binaries are OS-independant, iow a Linux-i386 one will work on *BSD, Solaris-i386 etc.

      the question is whether the cpu-dependancies are just an issue of endianness and bits-per-word or what, as if so, perhaps a post-processor could be developed that reverse-compiled them, and then recompiled them for a new platform... not much in the way of hardware secrets is given away by changing the endianness of bytes....

      We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde

      --

      Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
  52. Re:KDE by kashani · · Score: 1

    What we really need is "dumb as fuck" as one of the moderation choices.

    --
    - Why is the ninja... so deadly?
  53. GLX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Xfree86 can get documentation for video cards to create opensource drivers, Why can't the GLX group do the same with companies like nvidia to get information on there 3d protocol stuff?

    1. Re:GLX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 Letters: NDA. The XFree group has signed NDA's with many chip companies. In return, XFree has all members agree to the NDA. Any developer is given access to these specs, but the specs are *NOT* released in the snapshots or whatnot. Hence, no anon CVS access.

      The GLX project on the other hand is using openly obtained, NDA free specs. Hence, anon CVS access. NVidia tends not to release specs like that. Matrox does. Where should *YOUR* money be?

    2. Re:GLX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there is more intense competition in the 3d arena. 90% of cards out there have pretty much the same 2d performace, wheras 3d performance differs wildly. Not that I think there is substance to the "programming info helps the competition" crap. Their competitors have the resources to disassemble and document things from the binary drivers, if they were so inclined.

      the nvidia situation is even more fucked up because of the SGI partnership. I suspect we'll get a OpenGL (not Mesa) binary driver for X4 out of Nvidia (with help from SGI). Chances of THAT being open source approach 0 (due to being based on OpenGL not Mesa).

      Of course, we were supposed to know more by the end of the year, which has come and gone. Hopefully more info is forthcoming in the near future.

    3. Re:GLX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      utah-glx has anon-cvs access available for nvidia drivers. still no specs, but don't you feel dumb.

  54. Re:Not to restart an old flamewar (well, maybe so. by drig · · Score: 1

    Well, I think people have generally agreed that a replacement is a bad idea. Berlin is trying that, but, as you mention, hasn't had much publicity or apparent movement recently. As for extending X, well, I guess that's what XFree 4.0 is supposed to be.

    --
    Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
  55. First impressions by Adnans · · Score: 2

    Woah, AMD Athlon rocks!! The complete 3.9.17 build took less than an half hour on my box *grin*

    Now for the results. The only tweaking that had to be done to the source tree was to remove the doc directory from the build process. Looks like the top Makefile is missing in the docs directory. After that things compiled just fine (Debian Potato BTW).

    I had to do some massive editting in the XF86Config file to get things up and running on a G400. I don't understand why I have to specify the location of my card on the PCI bus. Can't XFree figure this out automatically?
    Anyway, this thing is SUPER MODULAR, I like it! I had to add the xaa module in the module section in order to get full XAA (duh) accelleration and to remove the unresolved symbols reports from mga_drv.o. But now that it works --> Mozilla is bloody fast!! Slashdot renders in 2 seconds, and that includes the time for the data to download! I'm using Mozilla because the netscape binaries either segfault or act up under 3.9.17. Next on my list of most wanted features: GLX MGA support!

    Perhaps more info later on...

    --
    "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:First impressions by MrHat · · Score: 1

      Is MGA support different from a direct-rendering GLX driver?

      If it isn't, and you haven't checked it out yet, head over to http://glx.on.openprojects.net/ and grab the Utah GLX source out of CVS. The Matrox G400 OpenGL drivers are supposedly "at the level of the windows drivers" already.

    2. Re:First impressions by MrHat · · Score: 1

      Grr... Posted too quickly again.

      You probably want GLX for XFree86 4.0 ;) - it's going to take quite a bit of work to get the CVS code to work as an XFree86 4.0 module. Oh well... the GLX site has been unreachable (at least where I am) for the last two days anyway.

    3. Re:First impressions by Adnans · · Score: 1

      Right :) Well, let's hope the .17 is reason enough for the Utah-GLX folks to seriously start thinking about moving the code base to 3.9.x ...

      Looks like there are general probs with *.on.openprojects.net sites, both GLX and LiVID are down, my 2 favourite projects right now. Let's hope it's not related to the stupid lawsuit by the DVDCA idiots.

      --
      "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
    4. Re:First impressions by McKing · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't need the location on the PCI bus unless you want multihead.

      If you have two Matrox cards (say, one on the AGP bus and one on the PCI bus), you would have two Device sections, one with:
      Bus_ID "PCI:0:10:0"
      and one with:
      Bus_ID "PCI:1:0:0"

      Of course, they have to have different names, but you get the picture...

      Incidentally, multihead ROCKS ASS!

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
    5. Re:First impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Looks like the top Makefile is missing in the docs directory. Yes, it does. To fix it, type the following into xc/doc/Imakefile: #define IHaveSubdirs SUBDIRS = specs all:: MakeSubdirs($(SUBDIRS)) DependSubdirs($(SUBDIRS))

    6. Re:First impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, I should have used the preview button. :)

      xc/doc/Imakefile should look like this:

      #define IHaveSubdirs
      SUBDIRS = specs

      all::

      MakeSubdirs($(SUBDIRS))
      DependSubdirs($(SUBDIRS))

    7. Re:First impressions by McKing · · Score: 1

      Even though this is a snapshot, you would have thought that someone would have built this on a few of the common platforms before uploading the tarballs. On a Redhat 6.1 intel system, I had to hand fix a few errors in the build process. The most annoying (besides the doc dir) was the actual XFree86 binary not being built at all due to a bad link in the mesa includes, but "make World" and "make install" chugged right on past it instead of dying with an error.

      wierd....

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
  56. Re:KDE by stripes · · Score: 1
    Personally i find that KDE is much easier to use had more features and is overal better than Xfree86.

    Personally i find that cars are much easyer to use and have more features and is overal better then tires.

  57. 3.9.17, SMP, Fire GL1, & PC98 Mouse blues.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, my Fire GL1 works with the 3.9.16, guess I'll see if it works okay with the 3.9.17. In any case the new X drivers are not multi-threaded so the real beauty of this card can only be appreciated in Windows NT. Kind of a Beauty and The Beast scenario. In NT the fire gl1 uses the second processor for geometry (I have a dual PIII 500Mhz system) It sucks that diamond & IBM won't let anyone else work on the drivers for the Mirage chip. They are taking their sweet time on the GLX support, only supporting version 4 of Xfree86, and taking their sweet time on updates. I would love to write the drivers myself (and contrib to the project), but diamond/IBM won't help at all. Maybe I'll just throw in the towel on this and get that new Elsa Gloria II with the NVIDIA Quadra. Real question for pre-4 Xfree86 is, "DID THEY FIX THE non-supported STATUS OF PC98 ps/2 MOUSE?" After searching the new documentation I still cannot answer this simple question.

  58. Xterminals and remote sessions by TonyGreene · · Score: 1

    I run an Xterminal at home on my old box with all the apps executing on a newer, faster box. It runs faster that way than running the apps separately on each box. I only have to manage one set of applications. Adding another old PC as an Xterminal would be trivial. I understand that games need faster video response. But since I never play video games (not even solitaire) that's not a problem for me.

    At work, I run X apps on an Xserver on my Win95 box. I've used X to simplify remote configuration in cases where I was unfamiliar with the necessary config file changes.

    The remote capabilities of X are one of it's strengths. If there are ways provided for gamers to get faster response while keeping the network capabilities, that's fine. But network transparency is a must-have feature for many people who work with X.

  59. It was sarcasm by Chris+Frost · · Score: 1

    Sorry about posting "KDE smokes X...", that was a bit of sarcasm on my part in response to the previous poster. I went on to explain the various levels of the X windowing system in hopes of clearing this topic up for a few people.
    I'll try to either not use sarcasm in my next post, or be sure to include a winking face or some such.

  60. KDE? X? LINUX? -->I BOOT STAR OFFICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right. To heck with all that low level stuff. Who needs KDE, X, and Linux? I just modified my BIOS, pointed the loader at the sector on my hard drive, and Bootstrapped Star Office right into the CPU exec table. Go ahead, try this at home...

  61. 3.9.17 performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Has anyone tried it out yet?

    Anyone care to estimate how much longer we might have to wait until the final 4.0 release?

    And how does this compare to something like Xig Accelerated X?

    1. Re:3.9.17 performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pluses: it's sooooper fast vs 3.3.5 (on my TNT2). Minuses: no 3D accel unless you have Voodoo3/Banshee, and Netscape 4.x doesn't work properly (clicking on links does nothing (!!!)). KFM's browser (in KDE 1.1.2) and Mozilla work fine however :)

    2. Re:3.9.17 performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      disable javascript for netscape, it seemed to fix it for me.

    3. Re:3.9.17 performance by C.Lee · · Score: 0

      > Has anyone tried it out yet?

      >Anyone care to estimate how much longer we might have to wait until
      >the final 4.0 release?

      >And how does this compare to something like Xig Accelerated X?

      What does it matter since the vast majority of us aren't stupid enough to waste our money on Xig Accelerated X when we don't have any use for it?

    4. Re:3.9.17 performance by maXter · · Score: 1

      I thought that Netscape problem was just me. I feel better now. :) By the way, using the libc5 version of Netscape fixed everything for me. Dunno why.

      --

      Ryan Patrick Harris (maxter)
      http://maxtersbox.net University of Michigan
  62. X: Satan's Window to the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
    Matthew 16:26
    Friends, I'd like to spend a few minutes with you to discuss the "X" windowing system. This is a piece of software that I feel represents a real threat to our way of life here in the Christian Nation of the United States of America. It embodies all that we are fighting against, all that is evil and immoral in the world, and it must be dealt with swiftly and severely. We must always remain vigilant so that we can recognize when our intervention is necessary. The time has come to put a stop to X and its augmentation of the damned, socialist Linux operating system regime.

    It is no coincidence that the windowing system is named X. Study after study has shown that the sociopaths who use Linux and other Linux-like operating systems primarily use their graphical environments to view pornography. Fitting, isn't it? A piece of software named X that is used for viewing X-rated material. An independent study performed by the beloved Reverend Jerry Falwell has revealed that there is an abundance of homosexual pornography on the Internet as well. Evidence of this can be found by looking at the Reverend's IE 5.0 bookmarks.

    Friends, here is what we're dealing with: a windowing system for a communist operating system that is used for the most part to view pornography of a homosexual nature. I've just clicked off so many negative things that I'm quite convinced that we all see why it is so important that X be destroyed. You see, I believe that X is Satan's window into this world, his eyes and ears in the world of the living, where he gets a chance to sink his claws into unsuspecting prey and secure their place in the land of the damned when they move from this life to the next.

    XFree86 is doubly bad, because it also happens to be free software; as we all know, free software is a concept that is universally despised by God's good little capitalists. It's not surprising that it's free. Satan wants it to be free. He's dumping it onto the world and encouraging its use by giving it an attractive price. Friends, we all know that monetarily, XFree86 has no price .. but in terms of the eternal soul, the price tag that X carries is simply incalculable. Matthew wrote that a man does not profit if he gains the world and loses his soul. XFree86 might certainly make the world available to Linux users, but at the cost of their eternal life.

    So what can we do to stop X, with its promotion of homosexual pornography, and its augmentation of the intrusion of the socialist Linux operating system into the lives of decent people? Friends, we can do a lot. Write your congressman (I do not say "congressperson", because it is universally known that women cannot be effective legislators) and tell him to support the XFree86 Supression Act being introduced next session by the wonderful American Bob Barr. If you happen to have access to any Linux machines owned by friends, reformat the drives and install Windows 2000. Burn their Linux CDs, if you are so inclined.

    Friends, I am convinced that we have the moral fortitude to fight this fight and emerge victorious. We will meet X head-on and defeat it in a glorious battle for the minds of our children. X will not win. X is going down.

    Thank you for your time.
    1. Re:X: Satan's Window to the World by extrasolar · · Score: 2

      "Evidence of this can be found by looking at the Reverend's IE 5.0 bookmarks."

      Internet Explorer has Favorites. There are no Bookmarks in Internet Explorer.

      Or did I miss the entire point of the post? :)

    2. Re:X: Satan's Window to the World by Ateran · · Score: 1

      Who the hell moderated this to "troll?"
      This was damn funny.

    3. Re:X: Satan's Window to the World by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      I thought it was pretty damn funny also. Some of you devoted moderators might consider getting out more. This was Andy Kauffman-style humor at it's finest.

    4. Re:X: Satan's Window to the World by maXter · · Score: 1

      This one had me rolling =)

      --

      Ryan Patrick Harris (maxter)
      http://maxtersbox.net University of Michigan
  63. Rather, promote those who excel in the community by verbatim · · Score: 2
    Why not have some sort of public reconition of the companies that DO open-source closed information - especially important components like video cards, SCSI adapters, network cards, etc.

    I think it's important for companies to follow published standards. If the product follows a published standard, then at least minimal drivers could be produced without much effort - heck, one day we could have an OS that comes with the "standardized" driver code and then companies could release enhancement drivers. On the other hand, I personally don't like the idea of a "compatability list". I think it limits the vision of people writing new stuff. We need a "not-yet-compatable" list. ;)

    --
    Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
  64. A better alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give all you young pups a vt320 and force you to play wumpus all day long! Muhahahaha.
    -- Anonymous BOFH

  65. Re:KDE by jfunk · · Score: 2

    Don't compare apples to oranges.

    Actually, it's more like comparing the apple to the apple tree.

  66. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nord!

  67. Actually.. by ph43drus · · Score: 1
    It probably will be in on the 3D support. That is if NVidia continues to release stuff (I just wish they'd put the specs out... the source isn't much good without those... oh well).

    Jeff

  68. nVida geforce and X by Validus · · Score: 1

    Well this may be a bit off topic but, Dose anyone know when GeForce 256 will be supported by freeX86 . nVida relased the TNT and TNT2 drivers so maby hope in near.

    1. Re:nVida geforce and X by Foogle · · Score: 2
      There's preliminary support for the GeForce in this release. I don't know if it works though...

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    2. Re:nVida geforce and X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators should all be shot in the head.

    3. Re:nVida geforce and X by Validus · · Score: 1

      Why is this (1, troll) I found it helpful, and it is true so what on earth were you thinking?

    4. Re:nVida geforce and X by Foogle · · Score: 1
      Thank you. Some other moderator apparently thought to too, and put me back up...

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    5. Re:nVida geforce and X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a GeForce, and I'm running Xfree86 without problems. And if you read the release notes, you'll notice that it includes a GeForce Nvidia driver...

  69. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a bowl full of apples on my kitchen table than a bowl full of apple trees

  70. Doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and why AppWatch announced it at least 6h before /.? BTW, I don't see it at Freshmeat.

  71. Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being the lazy ass that I am, I am here to ask what brave soul would like to make some binaries for 3.9.17, some rpms would be nice. *cracks the whip*

  72. negative Build!?! by BMIComp · · Score: 0

    New XFree86 snapshot - 3.9.17

    -3.9.17
    Are we that much behind? Negative versions?

    Meet me in F1AM3BA73 AN0NYM0U5 Now, right below... in replies

  73. RedHat and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies like Redhat should put more of there programmers to help the Xfree86 effort.

    1. Re:RedHat and others by treke · · Score: 0

      Well, the Xfree team has been doing pretty good themselves so far. I'm happy seeing the redhat programmers working on improving the user interface by continuing to support the gnome project.
      treke

    2. Re:RedHat and others by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
      Actually, Red Hat is one of the parties financing Precision Insight's work on the XFree86 4.0 project. Similarly, SuSE has a couple of people full-time to work on XFree86. You can't fault either Red Hat or SuSE -- they ARE putting their money where their mouth is.

      _E

      --
      Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  74. HAIKU FOR GEOFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RICH, RICH, RICH, RICH, RICH, YER SUPER DUPER RICH NOW. MONEY O MONEY.

    1. Re:HAIKU FOR GEOFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hah, a troll that was slightly creative!

      Whoever woulda thunk?

  75. An astute observation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally i find that KDE is much easier to use had more features and is overal better than Xfree86.

    Well, you're right, of course, but I see the XFree86 crowd is out in full force tonight. One thing that you have to realize is that the XFree86 movement is slick and very well-financed; these are the greasy-looking guys in thousand dollar suits and alligator shoes that you see walking up and down the halls at COMDEX. They have moderated you down, but they cannot silence you, and they cannot keep the truth from getting out. Keep the faith, man. Keep on crusading for the truth. Don't let these goons hold you back. You are the voice of dissent.

    Semper fi, man. Semper fuckin' fi.

    1. Re:An astute observation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morons, KDE runs ON X.. so how in the hell can it be better then X?

    2. Re:An astute observation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that "KDE is better than X" is like saying, "walking is better than having feet". You have to have one to be able to use the other. X is important if you want to be able to use your snazzy new Voodoo5 card or your Nvidia GeForce 512 in some resolution other than 640x480. KDE is important if you want desktop icons and taskbars and crap like that.

  76. It is closed source, with a leak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XFree86 development code is not available to
    the general public. XiG can get it though, by
    being a developer.

    Every so often, XFree86 puts out an Open Source
    release of the code. This code is dead. It is
    only for end users. Real development continues
    on the closed-source branch.

  77. Hmm.. Jave Video driver :). by Forge · · Score: 2

    When you move from CPU to CPU there is a lot more at stake than just that. Basically what you have suggested is a Video driver written in something equivalent to Java.

    I.e. It can be done but it's probably be slow. Better to make X source compatible across CPUs so the PPC, x86, Alpha etc... bins are separated by simply a "make all"

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    1. Re:Hmm.. Jave Video driver :). by simm_s · · Score: 1

      I don't think the CPU to CPU problem matters much since different architectures have different video standards.

      I don't think my TNT2 works on a mac so coding for one architecture in that case is not a problem.

    2. Re:Hmm.. Jave Video driver :). by dyslexia · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure. I've seen a voodoo3 used in a mac by changing the cards bios. And tnt2's (my viper 770 at least) do have a flashable bios. All a mac would need is an agp slot and you might see it.

      --
      --Have a Johsonville brat.
  78. This is a broken design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to abuse a network for video,
    you can substitute your own libraries.
    Compared to AGP (at 4x now), Ethernet bites.

    BTW, I do abuse a network this way every day,
    so don't go saying I don't know about it.

    The default libraries should have none of
    this crap. The default libraries should go
    directly to system calls, without even the
    overhead of an if() or switch().

    I'll load special remote access libraries
    when I need them. It isn't fair to burden
    normal users with the network crap I need.



    1. Re:This is a broken design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Your comparison of AGP to ethernet in this context is completely invalid. The X protocol is much higher level than that with which your cpu talks to your video card.

      Your X client sends the message: "draw the string 'I am a lamer who doesn't understand X' at (26, 44)" and the X server then proceeds to spit each and every pixel that makes up the string over the AGP bus. Depending on the font size and average coverage, the amount of AGP bandwidth used will vary, but even in the simplest realistic cases, the X protocol will end up using ~25-50x less bandwidth than pushing the pixels directly, and in typical cases, X will be well over 100x more efficient (This is all ignoring things like LBX which help even more). An X server has a much more complex and high level command set than even the most expensive professional graphics accelerator.

      Your argument does, however, apply to protocols like VNC. That doesn't, however, make VNC any less useful for the people who use it.

    2. Re:This is a broken design. by puetzk · · Score: 1
      This is what the shared memory extensions are for! A client that want's more direct access (and already knows that there is a shared memory space) will use shared pixmaps, and poof, no sockets! The program puts data in RAM, the Xserver works from there. A program that wants even more direct access (and knows it's on the same machine) can use DGA to write directly into VRAM.

      There is the main protocol (high abstraction) and two other ways, varying speed, transparency, and portability. Pick what you need.

      Also, saying Ethernet is completely wrong. loopback TCP would be the worst case (unless there really is a network layer) and UNIX domain sockets should be what is being used.

      Unfortunately, I don't do much in Xlib, so YMMV for details, but I think I'm close

      --
      The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
  79. Re:3.9.17 performance.... ummm ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's soooper fast huh? how about some numbers?

    MrNiceGuy

  80. Have my GeForce running on 3.3.5 by kevdog · · Score: 2

    About 2 weeks ago a patch for the SVGA server has been availabe to add support for the GeForce. You can get the precompiled binary, or patch of the SVGA server at http://www.s2.org/~jpaana/nv/

    I haven't had any problems with it, plus support for the GeForce is going to be availabe in 3.3.6 - which should be availabe soon.

  81. Real nice but it needs improvement. by slashdot-terminal · · Score: 2

    I have no idea on what so called "improvements" have been done but most graphical apps have yet to actually work with 100% efficiency for me. I have a suspicion that I am underutilizing the graphics hardware on my machine but am not able to actually do anything because it dosn't actually display properly. Now I have never had much success with the various support "forums" that the Xfree project actually provides. I really don't care what they do as long as they do it right and not concentrate all development resources on the newest Voodoo 3 6000 or something.
    I have a couple of questions related to this
    1. Does anyone make any decent video cards (actually new things) that would run on classic PC hardware say something that would be found on a "regular" computer on a 486/33 or 486/66 motherboard
    2. If not why not
    3. Is there ongoing development in creating either a modular windowing system or something lightweight (similar to Qnx or similar). Most of my hard crashes in Linux are usually due to running graphical apps that take almost all the system resources and then make the system totally unresponsive to even direct calls to the X server.
    4. Something that would allow for better setting of parameters or perhaps autodetection for various modes a little better.
    I tried to set up my videocard a few times before I got anything that would work. First video: Super-VGA;Chipset: ATI 68800-6 (Port Probed);Memory: 1024 Kbytes;
    RAMDAC: Sierra SC1148{2,3,4} 15-bit or SC1148{5,7,9} 15/16-bit HiColor (with 6-bit wide lookup tables (or in 6-bit mode));Attached graphics coprocessor:Chipset: ATI Mach32 Memory: 1024 Kbytes
    I got the above when I attempted to superprobe it so I was at least able to run the Super VGA server but when I attempted to run the Mach32 server the screen was extremely elongonigated or it allowed for a high resolution but when I ran something like a window manager or an application all of the little details like the menus and buttons and such were just eliminated with their text. Now not to create something that may be a source of shame but does anyone still care about this type of thing anymore or is this release and the up comming one just going to be a little thing for all the big boys to play with around town with their brand new $7,000 graphics adapters. I think that the server may increase preformance but I'll be damned if I can get the thing to adaquately work.

    --
    Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
    1. Re:Real nice but it needs improvement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have used, and still do use a Mach32 card daily. It does work, so keep trying.

  82. Re:Rather, promote those who excel in the communit by pen · · Score: 1
    Why not have some sort of public reconition of the companies that DO open-source closed information - especially important components like video cards, SCSI adapters, network cards, etc.

    I guess we just need to give it some time... after all, this is already pretty much true for IDE hard drives, IDE CD-ROMs, floppy drives, some video modes, modems (good ones, anyway), keyboards, mice.

    Does anyone know if the newer technologies are headed in the same direction, or have the companies decided that making it all a pain in the ass is the way to go?

    --

  83. Re:KDE by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    It will just discourage people from posting, or increase the number of AC's...but again this kind of dumb comments are often already from AC's. Yeah, go for it then!

  84. Re:3.9.17 performance.... ummm ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok. 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384

    42

    69

    666

    31337

    are those enough numbers, or did you want some more?

  85. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was Andy Kauffman-style humor at it's finest.

    Well, as the author of the original post, I must thank you for that compliment. :-)

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no way YOU could be the author of the original post cause i am.

  86. Posting of software updates by Daltorak · · Score: 2

    It's great that Slashdot informs us of updates to "cornerstone" Linux products like XFree86, but may I offer a suggestion?

    Instead of simply providing a link to an FTP site containing the updated files, how about offering a link to the homepage, or some sort of "announcement" or "new features" page on the web-site. That way we can, at a real-quick glance, see what's new and decide if it's worth it before starting a download. It'd also save some time hunting down the relevant information manually, or, -god forbid-, via another site like Freshmeat... ;-)

    (as for the previous poster's comment about a software-update posting being irrelevant on Slashdot, keep in mind that a large portion of the Linux community uses XFree86, plus it's bleeding-edge... so it's "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters"...)

    Daltorak

    1. Re:Posting of software updates by BlueDraco · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't believe it was announced on xfree86.org yet...

    2. Re:Posting of software updates by Daltorak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd noticed that. I know that programming comes first to most coders, and documenting second... but if we're expecting the greater computing community to join in the Free Software crusade, we need to live up to the documentation end as strongly as the software end.

      But I digress... I'm sure xfree86.org will have an announcement up Real Soon Now.

      Daltorak

    3. Re:Posting of software updates by Alphix · · Score: 1

      How about ftp://ftp.xfree86.org/p ub/XFree86/snapshots/3.9.17/RELNOTES......from the document itself: "This document contains some information about the features present in XFree86 3.9.17 and their status."

  87. You just proved his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know the glx ppl didn't hack togeather
    that source yourself when there are no specs with it?

    You kind of just proved his point.

    Don't you feel stupid...

  88. Review by jimbo · · Score: 1

    Why don't someone give a complete review of the latest snapshot. From a users point of view that is.

    * Font appearance, (do they look better, worse, the same)
    * 2D performance (ie full drag of 2D windows, etc.)
    * 3D performance (gaming?)
    * Whatever

    I can read lists of brilliant features, but what is the actual real world gain? What can I see, feel and measure on my workstation in my daily usage?

    Just a thought.

  89. Re:3.9.17 performance.... ummm ok... by ghazban · · Score: 1

    Well.... For my super-shitty trident 9750 2mb video chip, it -getimage100 was almost twice as fast. That good enough?

  90. LUCKY RICH KID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that you're rich you can buy any company that made people sign non-disclosure agreements, cancel those agreements, and resell the companies.

  91. Get off his back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy, aren't we having fun!

  92. Yoyu showed him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats just so childish

  93. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a pretty relevant and on topic post to me... RMS made a statement about XFree, and this person quoted it. Sorry if you don't like it...

  94. No No No... Forth Video driver by russm · · Score: 1

    what this would ideally be is something implememted in forth rather than java... the compiled f-code is processor independant, and executes substantially faster than java (execution is threaded, rather than interpreted, like RPL)... this is the way that PCI cards with Open Firmware boot ROMs (built around Forth) can be used without OS-specific drivers on SPARC, PPC, and whatever other architectures have OF implemented on them...

    problem is it's still damn fsckin' slow...

  95. YOU ARE SOOOOOO RICH NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How can you even code anymore? If I were you I'd have

    a) my own plane
    b) a harem and
    c) a beowulf cluster of epplets.

  96. Dont like X , Run something else and go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all you want to do is bitch about the monumental job the Xfree team are doing run somethign else. While you are at it let me know what you can run WITH it.( not much ) X is pretty damned universal, and it works TODAY. Sure its not perfect, but what is.

  97. Re:3.9.17 performance.... ummm ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm... i have NO idea what thet means.. is that 2D or 3D? would like some figures on both.. ("isNaN")

  98. [OT] Re:First impressions by Ian+Schmidt · · Score: 1

    LiViD moved to http://www.linuxvideo.org/ which is still up, so I don't think openprojects' outage is lawsuit-related.

  99. Minimal Properties of a Replacement by Christopher+B.+Brown · · Score: 4
    People talk about "replacements" to X all the time. It is fairly typical for such discussions to represent illiterate ravings of those that understand neither X nor the systems they think are candidates to replace X.
    • Berlin can't be a replacement for X; it's not a hardware-oriented system.

      Only idiots compare Berlin to X, as the systems have very little functionality in common. X knows how to talk to hardware, whereas Berlin doesn't. Berlin needs to have some combination of GGI and OpenGL.

      It would be vastly more sensible to compare Berlin to GTK, Qt, or FLTK, as that is where there might be properties in common.

    • A replacement for X needs to have some vaguely similar degree of portability.

      It needs to run on many kinds of systems.

      GGI would be the most likely candidate for this; it's not there yet.

    • A replacement for X needs to provide vaguely similar levels of network interoperability.

      Yes, there are users that only want to run applications on one host's console. And that's why X provides things like the SHM extension so that if everything's local, performance can be made better.

      But those that focus on Console! Console! Console! are ignoring that they're not the only users, they're restricting flexibility, and, more importantly, they're ignoring that network support is getting more important all the time. You see, there's this newfangled "Internet" thing...

      "GnotX" won't represent a realistic alternative unless it is network-aware.

    • And then there's the application problem.

      If the new system doesn't permit running the applications that we already have, then this means discarding all of the X-based software that people have been finding useful over the last dozen years.

      Notably, no more KDE, no more GNOME, no more StarOffice, no more WordPerfect, no more ApplixWare, no more Netscape.

      Even if there was a way that "GnotX" made a GTK, and thereby GNOME, port easy, this would definitely be injurious to vendors of X software like ApplixWare and WordPerfect (that have some Motif involvement, and thus mandate having a real good X emulation).

      "Legacy" vendors won't see this as a move to cooperate with, and like it or not, that's a factor having significance.

    • Then there's the BIG problem.

      People propose things as replacements for X that weren't truly designed as such, or that, worse still, aren't really designed at all.

      The original incarnation of "Berlin" amounted to this; they flung epithets at X, claiming it was obsolete, and that they'd do K001 x86 assembly hacking to produce something that would just destroy X.

      This was quite silly; they never had a clear design, only a set of claims that amounted to "Because We're Cool Hackers, We'll Outdo X." That may represent intent; that does not represent design.

    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    1. Re:Minimal Properties of a Replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you mean that it's the X protocol that needs to have "some degree of portability", which might be fairly obvious. But if "portability" means that whatever type of server you're using is big and slow, then it won't be appealing to anyone but the folks who designed it.

    2. Re:Minimal Properties of a Replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That could be compared to HTTP, where there are an extremely diverse set of web servers, resulting from its relative simplicity.

      Well, there you go. HTML has universal acceptance. It has limited capabilities, but it gives 'em what they want, and that's what counts.

    3. Re:Minimal Properties of a Replacement by reftel · · Score: 1
      While I agree with you on most of your points, I don't really like to be called an idiot...
      Berlin can't be a replacement for X; it's not a hardware-oriented system.

      Only idiots compare Berlin to X, as the systems have very little functionality in common. X knows how to talk to hardware, whereas Berlin doesn't. Berlin needs to have some combination of GGI and OpenGL.

      Some X servers talk to hardware, but not all. XGGI doesn't, and neither does XNest, the XFree86 frame buffer server, or most (all?) of the X servers for Mac and MS-Windows. X is not a hardware-oriented system. There is nothing in the spec that says what an X server should talk to.

      It is true that the only implementation of Berlin uses GGI for graphics, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to write a Berlin server that talks directly to hardware, like some X servers do.

      What X really does is to allow programs to display graphical interfaces across networks, which is exactly what Berlin tries to do.

      It would be vastly more sensible to compare Berlin to GTK, Qt, or FLTK, as that is where there might be properties in common.
      Not at all. GTK and QT (don't know anything about FLTK...) are toolkits that allow programs to be written that can work independantly of the windowing system (X11, MS-Windows, etc). They are somewhat comparable to the Warsaw library in Berlin.

      Note that I'm not trying to say that Berlin could ever replace X (or that there's even a reason to replace it), just that one can compare Berlin and X without being an idiot.

      --
      print "yet another p{ython,erl} hacker\n",
    4. Re:Minimal Properties of a Replacement by John+Allsup · · Score: 1
      Berlin can't be a replacement for X; it's not a hardware-oriented system.
      At the software interface level, X is hardware agnostic -- you don't need to know about the hardware that the app appears on in order to use it (except for display depth and dimensions). Berlin just takes the high level idea through its natural course (rather than taking low level calls and sticking a networking layer in the middle of them as X does)
      Only idiots compare Berlin to X,
      only idiots need a GUI...etc.etc.etc.
      as the systems have very little functionality in common. X knows how to talk to hardware, whereas Berlin doesn't. Berlin needs to have some combination of GGI and OpenGL.
      X knows how to talk to X applications -- the rest is down to implementation (note that if a piece of software speaks the X protocol then it is an X server, if not then it isn't -- there is nothing in X itself that says that it knows how to speak to the hardware and, for example, Windows X servers only speak to Windows)
      It would be vastly more sensible to compare Berlin to GTK, Qt, or FLTK, as that is where there might be properties in common.
      No -- it would be more sensible to compare Berlin to a combination of X, GTK, Orbit and GNOME combined.
      A replacement for X needs to have some vaguely similar degree of portability. It needs to run on many kinds of systems.
      That's why the hardware requirements are left open. Thats why in their sample implementation, they intent to use OpenGL for all the low level stuff -- by the time they have something to be used by users, accellerated OpenGL will be generally available.
      GGI would be the most likely candidate for this; it's not there yet.
      No reason why -- that was an early aim, which they have (partially) moved away from. In any case, the main thrust is the high level interface.
      A replacement for X needs to provide vaguely similar levels of network interoperability. Yes, there are users that only want to run applications on one host's console. And that's why X provides things like the SHM extension so that if everything's local, performance can be made better.
      I strongly disagree. X's levels of interoperability are one of its major shortcomings. For example, why is it so difficult to, say, implement drag and drop? Why can't it easily be built in? X is low level, and anything else is a strain to implement.
      But those that focus on Console! Console! Console! are ignoring that they're not the only users, they're restricting flexibility, and, more importantly, they're ignoring that network support is getting more important all the time. You see, there's this newfangled "Internet" thing...
      Equally, those that think that all we need is a GUI are very much mistaken -- the GUI, OS, object systems and programming languages should be closely related (take OS/2's GUI as an example -- it is trivial to extend EVERY applications 'open' dialog in one stab)
      "GnotX" won't represent a realistic alternative unless it is network-aware.
      Network aware is the easy bit -- simply make a GUI IPC based, and make the IPC network transparent (Berlin's distributed OO approach gives them this bit for free :-)
      And then there's the application problem. If the new system doesn't permit running the applications that we already have, then this means discarding all of the X-based software that people have been finding useful over the last dozen years.
      If we thought that, we'd all be running Windows. :-)
      Notably, no more KDE, no more GNOME, no more StarOffice, no more WordPerfect, no more ApplixWare, no more Netscape.
      KDE is based on Qt, which is portable to systems such as Windows. Similarly for GTK and GNOME. As for applix and star, that is their problem. In any case, why not make an X server for the new GUI system -- X itself isnt -too- unportable.
      Even if there was a way that "GnotX" made a GTK, and thereby GNOME, port easy, this would definitely be injurious to vendors of X software like ApplixWare and WordPerfect (that have some Motif involvement, and thus mandate having a real good X emulation).
      Their problem -- what you describe is the main reason that Windows is such a shoddy product.
      Then there's the BIG problem. People propose things as replacements for X that weren't truly designed as such, or that, worse still, aren't really designed at all.
      Equally, people propose that X is a good idea for a GUI -- it is not.
      This was quite silly; they never had a clear design, only a set of claims that amounted to "Because We're Cool Hackers, We'll Outdo X." That may represent intent; that does not represent design.
      The original Berlin idea was thrown in the bin.
      John
      --
      John_Chalisque
  100. Compiled! by chabotc · · Score: 1

    Finaly it compiled! GeForce support is working, and its fast as hell. Still im reverting to 3.3.x cause of its buggyness. Netscape doesnt render most of the page when its done downloading it, and mozilla causes XFree 3.9.17 to just plainly dump back to the text mode.
    So all in all, a great pre release, showing great potential, but for a production envirioment, this pre release just doesnt cut it yet, ill just w8 for 2 months for the final :)

    -- Chris Chabot
    "I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"

    1. Re:Compiled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some yet unresolved issues with the
      new libXt in 3.9.x. Restore your old libXt and
      statically compiled Motif apps like Netscape
      will work again.


      Mark Vojkovich
      mvojkovi@XFree86.org

  101. Video card independance! by simm_s · · Score: 2

    I know this may sound silly, but I think they should take the video drivers out of X and make them run in kernel space! The creation of universal video drivers will help speed the developement of X and non X programs. X clients are not designed for speed in terms of multimedia and games (although it is not too bad at doing them). Also many home uses may not need the network transpancy layer. Yes I do know one of X's jobs is to handle the video card. That should change in the future!

    Why should console apps act differently than X apps when it comes to 2D/3D graphics acceleration?

    If I wanted to create a GUI system independant of X I would not get the benefits of X's video card drivers. I would have to reinvent the wheel. I find that extremely limiting as more and more companies come on to the Linux/Unix bandwagon.

    BTW this will never happen but one can dream.

    1. Re:Video card independance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. Video drivers in the kernel
      Microsoft went for speed and put the video subsystem in kernel space in the transistion from NT 3.5 -> 4.0. Now buggy video cards/drivers can crap out that enterprise-level server OS. Of course, since it doesn't even have a text mode, you can't just kill the display and wait until a maintenance window to replace the video card or get a patch to fix the problem. With X, I can just run in text mode for a while, or contact the maintainer of the card's drivers, get a patch (or patch it myself) and install a new version of the driver, and restart the display server. I don't even run X on most of my servers, preferring to ssh in and run whatever X programs I need using ssh's X proxy.

      2. 4.0 now has DRI (direct rendering) which will allow properly written programs to bypass X and write directly to the video card in a controlled manner for a fast fullscreen mode like in Windows or SVGALib. OpenGL is also a part if this, too, so now OpenGL-based games will (finally) have access to the hardware acceleration.

      3. Home users may not need the network layer, but it is there anyway, it is already an integral part of the X communication protocols, and it works just fine. Even if you don't have a network card in your machine, you still have a virtual network running with localhost on it. Also, with the SHM (shared memory) X extension, local X clients communicate with the server directly through shared memory, so it doesn't matter if there is network code there, anyway. What's that old saying about something not being broken....

      4. If you wanted to use the XFree drivers in your mythical X replacement system, go right ahead! XFree is licensed under a modified BSD license, so you can just use the drivers. You would have to also borrow the module loading mechanism and use the API for communicating with the drivers, but at this point, you might as well just fork the XFree tree, and chop out the pieces you don't like. Which you are perfectly able to do, but it seems much more reasonable not to.

      Again, I say...if it's not broken, don't fix it.
      Most of the issues people have had with XFree are either being directly worked on for 4.0, or are in the pipe once 4.0 is out and stable, since they rely on some of the features in 4.0 (except anti-aliased fonts, and I think there are people on that, too).

    2. Re:Video card independance! by simm_s · · Score: 1

      Now buggy video cards/drivers can crap out that enterprise-level server OS

      I had thought about that problem and yes a crappy driver can bring down an enterprise server. Any crappy driver can bring down any server. I could probably create bad drivers to send bad signals to my network card or hard drive which can crash linux, bsd, or whatever. There have been rare times when X would send bad signals to my video card and freeze the system, extremely rare but it does happen. Running in user space gives a false sense of security.

      Just because I make video drivers to run in kernel space does not mean that console mode would be impossible. Just because I have drivers for my sound card does not mean I have to use my sound card. Also it does not make Linux sound card dependent.


      4. If you wanted to use the XFree drivers in your mythical X replacement system, go right ahead! XFree is licensed under a modified BSD license, so you can just use the drivers. You would have to also borrow the module loading mechanism and use the API for communicating with the drivers, but at this point, you might as well just fork the XFree tree, and chop out the pieces you don't like. Which you are perfectly able to do, but it seems much more reasonable not to.

      The drivers are not extremely portable since they are made to work specifically with X. A universal standard would save developers time and open the opportunity for other non X, graphically intense apps to be created.

      Seperate driver development also breeds unreliablitly. One driver can work perfectly while another can be crappy. Universal video standards can have developers focus on a problem and fix it at a central location.

    3. Re:Video card independance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A video driver is very much more complex than a network driver.

      I haven't looked at the API, but it seems to me that the drivers themselves shouldn't really be X-specific. If they were, then wouldn't that be wasting the opportunity for modularization in the 3.x -> 4.0 rewrite? The drivers themselves should really only handle the actual display of images, not perform any X specific operations, so even if you had to accept their API (or wrap it in something more palatable), you could prolly still use the drivers.

      Once again, we here at Slashdot are almost arguing in circles. I agree with you that universal video drivers (maybe in the kernel, maybe not) would be nice, however in this case, since X is not a Linux thing but a OS-neutral thing, and XFree has to work on a variety of Unices on a variety of platforms, then the current system will have to stay in place.

  102. Fundies against X (HA! HA! HA!) by bbcat · · Score: 1

    I won't comment directly on all the bullshit
    that you came up with, the following phrase
    says a lot about what kind of stupid fundy
    you are.

    > ... the beloved Reverend Jerry Falwell...

    This jackass along with Pat Robertson is one of
    the most hated moron in this great country of
    ours. He makes christians look like stupid idiots.
    Fortunately he's not representive of the American
    people. I recall a survey a few years back when
    Foolwell claimed that his moral majority was
    responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan, he
    had about 4-6% support in the USA.

    Your comments about Linux versus homosexuality
    are ridiculous. The proportion of homosexuals
    or heterosexuals isn't much different in the
    Linux world as it is in the Apple, Solaris or
    Winblows world. People's sexual tastes aren't
    based on what computer programs or OS they
    prefer. The same goes for pornography or any
    other stuff that you don't like.

  103. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everything suckz EXPECT EMACS!!!!

  104. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everything suckz EVERYTHING BUT EMACS!!!!

  105. Overhead of socket calls vs. direct calls by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    One of the design goals of the "X" project was STABILITY. There are calls in the Win32 API that will totally trash the GUI, such as (hmm) TerminateThread (I suggest that you read the documentation on MSDN on that one -- you can actually lock up the entire system by using TerminateThread on a program that has made a Win32 API call, is in a "critical section" i.e. has already aquired a lock, and you terminate it before it releases the lock -- all other processes and threads will lock up because they'll no longer be able to acquire the lock!).

    In addition to reducing fundamental stability, the Windows solution also makes it hard to release resources when a thread or process dies. Windows leaks memory like a seive, whereas all "X" resources are tagged and when the OS sends a SIGPIPE to the "X" server to signal that a socket has closed, "X" can release all resources associated with that socket.

    BTW, if you are running the "X" server local to the machine, the socket can be used only for control commands, not for actual data. Actual data would be sent via shared memory. I suggest that you read up on the SysV IPC spec and see why it's not a good idea to send *ALL* data to the video display via shared memory (basically: shared memory does not go away when the process that allocated it dies, and the "X" server would not be notified if that other process died so it wouldn't know to manually de-allocate that shared memory).

    Finally, regarding the performance argument: SGI. I think that says it all. SGI has graphics performance unmatched by anyone -- and runs "X". SGI is perfect proof that "X" does NOT have to be slow -- if "X" is slow, that's an implementation problem, not a fundamental problem with "X". Yes, it's faster to draw directly into a frame buffer than it is to draw directly into a shared memory buffer and then send a command via the "X" socket -- but not MUCH faster, especially if (as with SGI) you have made some optimizations at the OS level for local sockets. I think they have it down to where sending data on a local socket is actually putting it into a buffer, and then mapping that buffer into memory on the other end, somewhere around 20 or 30 cycles. The only real time consumer is marshalling and de-marshalling (i.e., converting the data to a stream, then converting it back to native-format binary at the other end), but that's hardly a killer.

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  106. No need to comb your hair... by xeno · · Score: 2

    There's no need for you to comb your hair; this didn't even graze you as it went over your head.


    (Criminy, some people would need a prybar to haul their twisted knickers out of their arses!) Don't be so uptight -- laugh once in a while!

    J

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
    1. Re:No need to comb your hair... by bbcat · · Score: 1

      A good laugh was the intent of my post.
      The Troll acting as a fundy deserved to be treated
      as such. Ever heard that thing about the one
      who cried wolf?

    2. Re:No need to comb your hair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? It was funny. The author of the post even admitted as much.

  107. 3.9.17 hasn't been released. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, 3.9.17 hasn't officially been released
    yet. The .diffs are on the ftp site but the
    RELEASE NOTEs you're all reading aren't finished
    yet. There will be an anonouncement on
    www.XFree86.org when the release is completed.


    Mark Vojkovich
    mvojkovi@XFree86.org

  108. Why pipes? by SnowZero · · Score: 1

    The reason Windows gets away with direct calls as a speed measure is that (1) Win has a broken differentiation between kernel and user space so switching among them is easier, and (2) they are on x86 so there isn't too much context in a contxt switch. What you get from pipes is free buffering so you don't have to do a context switch for every call (or two if you use safer user mode drivers). Believe it or not, windows NT was using a buffered design just like this before they decided to accept the instability of moving it into the kernel; and as it turns out the speed gains of the latter turned out to be minimal.

    The main problems I see are people bitching incessantly about what they don't understand. I thought X was a dumb design until I hadd coded and worked on several different GUI systems. After all that most people realize (as did I) that X was a pretty wise tradeoff on all the design issues.

    Apache seems to have a dumb design to me at this point; a lot of things don't seem to make sense; but that's probably due to my ignorance about its design issues.

  109. Portability of protocol by Christopher+B.+Brown · · Score: 2
    If X were simpler, there might have been a greater number of implementations, and thus we might have something to compare to.

    That could be compared to HTTP, where there are an extremely diverse set of web servers, resulting from its relative simplicity.

    As for the size of X, I understand that the port to the Itsy weighed in at about 300K. The things in X that are bloated are things like:

    • Font cacheing and the simple fact that scaled fonts eat RAM
    • Cacheing of hidden objects/windows
    which represent things that would cause similar "bloat" in any alternative system.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
  110. Module code by Joe+Groff · · Score: 1

    I have my own (top-secret :) project I'm working on. I like the module idea - can I rip the module code from XFree86 without a whole lot of effort? The main thing that inhibits me is the size of the source code tarballs. Perhaps someone could point me to the one I have to download, so I don't have to fetch the whole big mess.

    Pardon my greediness...

    --

    -Joe

  111. Photon MicroGUI (slightly off topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://qnx.com/literature /whitepapers/photonmicrogui.html

    Looks interesting. Is QNX's photon design sort of comparable to what they're trying to do with XFree86 4.0? Kind of interested in the approach they take here, interested in hearing various GUI experts take on it.

    1. Re:Photon MicroGUI (slightly off topic) by McKing · · Score: 1

      IANAGE, but here goes....
      (I am not a GUI expert)

      4.0 still follows the X protocols, as defined by the Open Group (or X Consortium, or X-men, or whatever they call themselves this week), it is simply a more modern rewrite of the current implementation and it adds some of the features present on some commercial unices. In order to stil be called an implementation of "The X Window System", XFree can not change the actual design very much, and therefore can not do much of what QNX is trying to do.

      4.0 is almost completely modular now, instead of having core functionality compiled into all of the drivers, there is now a core binary that loads almost everything in from modules (similar to the kernel). That means drivers can be compiled separately (and even distributed binary-only, for the suits at the video card companies). Also, other Unices have had multihead and Xinerama for a while, and of course SGI has always smoked on 3D stuff.

      The QNX stuff looks pretty impressive, given their attention to size constraints and "real-time"-ness, but I haven't worked with it, so can not speak to the quality.

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
  112. What about the font system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How has the font system been improved in 3.9.17? The release notes claim improvements in that area but expect me to go download the source tree and rummage through that to get a real explanation. I'm using win2k for 2 reasons:

    (1) The fonts are much more readable at any size. Anti-aliasing, is it really too much to ask? Sure, E has anti-aliased fonts in its titlebars and windows, but seriously I read much more on screen than just the window bars and about boxes. I could also care less if freetype can handle anti-aliasing, if I don't see the anti-aliasing on screen, it doesn't do me any good.

    (2) Photoshop. I'm sorry, I'll never get used to that blasted Gimp. No, i'm not a frickin programming genius, don't give me the classic /. recommendation of downloading source and adding or changing what I want to make it similar to Photoshop. And WINE/VMWare? No thank you. Some time ago I remember a /. article mentioning Adobe. I can only pray that someday they'll port photoshop. Yeah, I can dream, but dreaming is pointless these days.

    But anyway, as others have mentioned, an in-depth review of 3.9.17 and features guaranteed to be in 4.0 would be appreciated.

  113. Debian Packages by ln_2 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know whether/when Debian Packages are planned?

  114. I can't get it to compile successfully by Remenic · · Score: 1

    has anyone managed to successfully compile the new snapshot on a redhat based system? I have no idea how to configure the snapshot... And the readme doesn't help me much either ;) Any help would be appreciated. -Remenic-

  115. Missing (I)makefile... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

    I really love how they forgot to include an Imakefile in the doc directory causing compile to halt. I just downloaded 35 megs of crap for nothing.

    WAY TO GO XF86 DEVELOPERS!

    -- iCEBaLM

    1. Re:Missing (I)makefile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're lame.

      Just make an Imakefile with nothing in it.

    2. Re:Missing (I)makefile... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

      You're lame.

      Just make an Imakefile with nothing in it.


      ... And you'd still get the same "no rule to make clean [error 1]" on its initial make clean pass.

      I'm lame? Maybe you should check it out first before posting?

      Interestingly enough, the .16 snapshot didn't have this problem. I really like how they didn't even compile the code ONCE before releasing it.

      -- iCEBaLM

    3. Re:Missing (I)makefile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can install the .16 files then apply the patches for .17.

      However, if you have a 3dfx voodoo 3 card, there doesnt seem to be any way to configure the xf86config file without major hacking.

      The "nv" driver for the TNT seems to work ok though.

    4. Re:Missing (I)makefile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is this was deliberate.

      Why? To keep morons like you from compiling a development prerelease and then whining when *gasp* things break.

      It's a prerelease. Things don't work in prereleases. If you aren't smart enough to fix a trivial problem in the makefiles, you shouldn't be runnning it.

    5. Re:Missing (I)makefile... by AT · · Score: 1

      Do a make -i.

      Yeesh.

    6. Re:Missing (I)makefile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, THIS IS THE REASON WHY XFREE DOESN'T RELEASE SOURCE THAT OFTEN. It's to stop morons like you from compiling and bitching about it. My guess is that you'll start BITCHIN even louder when you'll overwrite your existing X11 installation by doing a make install!!!

  116. I agree, fundies are funny! by bbcat · · Score: 1

    I didn't say that it was not funny, fundies
    are always funny.

    My response was meant to be funny too. The post
    looked a bit outrageous to be for real but then
    again I've seen worst stuff coming from real
    fundies. Anyhow, outrageous post like that one,
    real or not didn't belong in a discussion about
    Linux.

    Fundies are funny most of the time and for the
    most part are too moron to be any threat to
    our freedoms. No one in his or her right mind
    would ever elect them to powerful positions.

    Mad had a neat admission form to the moral
    majority a few years ago, one of the requirements
    was to be against abortion for homosexuals.

    The funniest one I've seen so far was from one
    of those fundies is a fundy at work who showed
    me maps of Michigan and a few other states with
    spots which are supposed to be reserves where
    the environmentalists are going to put us in
    after they take over the country.
    He's also one of those who think that paper money
    is an evil plot against our freedom.

  117. Re:X development too closed -- Not the DRI by Caballero · · Score: 2
    We've moved the DRI work to dri.sourceforge.net

    We hope to make it as open a development process as possible. I'm the intermediary between XFree and the SourceForge project. I take the public snapshots and move them into SourceForge, then I do all my work on the public site, and finally I send patches back to XFree. It seems like the best way to do open development with the current restrictions. I does add a little overhead for me of course!

    So, if you're interested in DRI work, please check out our SourceForge project. We are looking for anyone interested in participating.

    - |Daryll

  118. 3.9.17 Not Officially Released. by jalex · · Score: 1
    I don't think you want to download 3.9.17 yet. I am 'running' 3.9.16 and it works fine. I even use the GLX extensions a little, but QUake3 is choppy and doesn't make use of my TNT card yet.

    3.9.17 is missing Imakefile in the xc/doc directory, has an incomplete font source tree, and has less documentation than 3.9.16. It appears to be an incomplete snapshot. I am sure they will put up the rest of it later. P.S. It won't really build.

    Wait til they announce it themselves.

  119. Man, you are in COLLEGE?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did you get into college with language skills like that??? I didn't even understand what the hell you were talking about.

    BTW, it is "to" not "too".

    Looser!

  120. Re: Anti-aliasing in XFree86 [was: Maybe some...] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll break with tradition, and actually post an informed message on slashdot.

    In 1997, Mark Leisher wrote some code to support TrueType fonts in XFree86, but had to abandon the project due to lack of time. In early 1999, I took it over, finished his work, added support for international encodings, and distributed it under the name xfsft (the first beta that actually did anything useful was dated February 1998). Shortly after that, I joined XFree86 and helped integrate it into the XFree86 source tree.

    Half a year and an almost complete rewrite later, I was thinking about anti-aliasing. Mark Vojkovich designed an extension (XAnti), and in March 1999 I implemented the backend support for it. Mark started implementing the extension code, and then realised that implementing anti-aliasing was complicated by the fact that GCs do not carry visual information; this means that all rendering to pixmaps (which are not associated to a particular visual) would need to be done through an extension.

    Mark then decided to suspend the XAnti extension until 4.0 was released. After 4.0 is out, we will try to work out whether XAnti should be pursued, or whether it is better to concentrate on developing rendering extensions with anti-aliasing, alpha-blending and stuff built in from the start (such as OpenGL/GLX, DPS, or something else). I do have an opinion on the subject, but I shan't state it publicly yet.

    Please don't trust me on this. Grab the last XFree86 public snapshot (you've got the source, see, XFree86 doesn't hide anything from you), and look at the file `xc/lib/font/FreeType/ftfuncs.c'. It contains the backend anti-aliasing support, within #ifdef ANTI_ALIASING. Also have a look at the directory xc/programs/Xserver/Xext/, where you will find the code that Mark wrote for Xanti. I would also suggest that you consult the xfsft change log (file CHANGES in the xfsft source tarball).

    So no, the lack of anti-aliasing in XFree86 is not due to the development model. It is not due to the license. It is due to the fact that it is a genuinely difficult problem, and that there are other things (such as getting 4.0 out) that are more urgent.

    Sincerely, although with some annoyance,
    Juliusz Chroboczek jec@dcs.ed.ac.uk.