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.
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...)
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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"...
The FSF advises against it. See The X Windows Trap. I quote:
So if even RMS advises against GPLing the X Windows System then it is probably not a good idea
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.
It needs to run on many kinds of systems.
GGI would be the most likely candidate for this; it's not there yet.
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.
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.
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.