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.

177 of 295 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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."

    6. 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"...
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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"

    12. 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?

    13. 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.
    14. 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)
    15. 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...
    16. 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.
    17. 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: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.
  3. 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!
  4. 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 --
  5. 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".

  6. 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

  7. 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...)

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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...

  11. 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.
  12. 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

  13. 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 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

  14. 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.
  15. 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."
  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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...

  26. 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 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

  27. 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

  28. 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.

    --

  29. 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.

  30. 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

  31. 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.
  32. 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).

  33. 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.
  34. 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).

  35. 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.
  36. 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);}
  37. 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 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).

  38. 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.
  39. 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

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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

  43. 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?
  44. 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
  45. 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 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...
  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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
  50. 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

  51. 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: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"...
  53. 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?
  54. 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
  55. Re:KDE by jfunk · · Score: 2

    Don't compare apples to oranges.

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

  56. 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

  57. 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 ;)

  58. 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 Validus · · Score: 1

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

    3. 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."

  59. 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

  60. 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.
  61. 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


  62. 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.

  63. 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
  64. 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.

  65. 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?

    --

  66. 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!

  67. 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."

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

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

  69. 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.

  70. 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?

  71. 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...

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

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

  73. [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.

  74. 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 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",
    2. 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
  75. 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!"

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.
  79. 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?

  80. 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.
  81. 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.

  82. 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.
  83. 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

  84. Debian Packages by ln_2 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know whether/when Debian Packages are planned?

  85. 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-

  86. 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!
    ----
  87. 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 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

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

      Do a make -i.

      Yeesh.

  88. 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.)
  89. 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.

  90. 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
  91. 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.
  92. 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

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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...