Slashdot Mirror
Xfree86 4.2.0 Out
According to david_eliasson,
Xfree86 v4.2.0 is out, but it'll probably be awhile before all
the mirror sites have sycned up with the release, so you may want
to just enjoy reading that changelog for a couple days before you
bother getting the whole archive.
... lots and lots of bugfixes. Glancing through the changelog extract linked to from the story, nothing really *new* jumped out at me. Not that this is a bad thing, bugfixes and increased stability/driver support is always nice. :-) I noticed a lot of things having to do with the Xprt server and having to do with 3d accel (drm, OpenGL man pages, nv driver tuning, etc.).
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Here's a question that I want to address carefully, because it does sound a bit like flamebait.
Should the Unix/Linux world move away from X? Redesign a graphical layer from the ground up, supporting antialiasing, transparency, enhanced programming environment, and a new, well defined and examined user interface? This would be going the Mac OS X route. In this model, I am not advocating abandoning X completely, but instead for backwards compatability run a rootless X server.
Here's a nicely formatted list of mirrors for you lazy bastards ;) :)6
Let's make the slashdot effect on xfree86.org a little more bearable
ftp://ftp.calderasystems.com/pub/mirrors/xfree86
ftp://carroll.cac.psu.edu/pub/XFree86
ftp://ftp.cs.umn.edu/pub/XFree86
ftp://download.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/XFree8
ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/XFree86
ftp://ftp.infomagic.com/pub/mirrors/XFree86
ftp://mirror.sftw.com/pub/XFree86
ftp://phyppro1.phy.bnl.gov/pub/XFree86
ftp://ftp.rge.com/pub/X/XFree86
ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/mirrors/xfree86
I found additional documents looking through the website. These are much more interesting to read than the changelog.
The README
The release notes
Installation details
Driver status
Enjoy!
LKML has 1-2k emails per week. We have Kernel Traffic, Linux Weekly News kernel summary, kerneltrap.com, #kernelnewbies and there is generally one kernel update per day on linuxtoday.com. There are tons and tons of other articles about kernel development on Linux websites.
Compiling and installing a new kernel is easy enough that people are doing it on linuxnewbie.org
As a result the Linux kernel is one of the greatest pieces of software that exists today. People are willing to do a phenomenal amount of work to have their code included into the kernel.
We are at the point where even the most excelent code has to compete to be included. There were at least three different scheduler implementations for 2.5, two different VMs, and two different asynchronous io implementations. It is very good to be in the position where you can pick and choose what code will go into the kernel at this level.
On the other hand for Xfree had a closed email list until a year or so ago. There are about 250 emails per week to the Xpert mailing list. There are few websites with Xfree development articles.
Compiling and installing Xfree is difficult.
People constantly complain about X needing to be replaced. While there are real problems with Xfree, most of the stuff that people complain about to slashdot is complete crap.
To me this suggests that Xfree needs to concentrate on their PR skills. Xfree guys need to make development easier for newbies. Key developers need to have more interviews. They need to prove that developing X is just as cool as developing the kernel. There need to be more frequent updates--posted to linuxtoday hopefully.
Compiling and installing Xfree needs to be easier. I think about it this way, once you compile something, you are only one step away from developing. All it takes after that is to open up an editor and change something.
To me Xfree is as important as the kernel. Without it I would not use Linux. This is true for the great majority of Linux users. Xfree deserves more attention and credit than it currently gets.
If you had read the thread I mentioned in the article you replied to, you'd see the anser to this one:
> > Not to be too non-technical...
> > > > If the protocol overhead is so small, why can't my 1200 mips (600mhzPIII)
> > machine resize windows without widgets streaking? My 486 could do
> > this fine running MS Windows. Is this because many widget toolkits (GTK,
> > QT) use XPutImage? There must be some way to speed things up.
blame your widget set. basically (sorry owen and co on the list) gtk a
(and i presume qt) dont render optimially at all. the do a semi-decent
job.. EXCEPt for opaque resizing, and when redrawing is more than a few
lines and boxes... this is a toolkit issue and imho the current set of
toolkits (motif, qt, gtk etc.) do a god-awful job of this kind of
stuff. right now i have silky smooth "opaque resize" stuff working here
with enlightenment 17 - but i do the rendering completely differently
to gtk/qt - its all a canvas and thus the rendering happens in a
"backing" so updates are smooth. on todays hardware this is the best
way to do it and have almots no artifacts ANd retain speed.
> "Streaking"? Are these opaque resizes? Alot of apps aren't doing
> event compression. They repaint the whole damn window every time they
> get an event. They could have at least checked that there weren't
> more events in the queue and got rid of them instead of handling each
> one in turn.
true. its a very bad thing that there are a LOT of apps that behave like
this... a LOT. some of the most commonly used are guilty of this
(netscape for one....)
If you enable Silken Mouse in XFree86 4.0 and later, this should be fixed. Certainly an implementation issue and not an architectural issue (i.e. not a reason to throw out X and start over)
These aren't X11 problems but GUI problems, GUI standardization is certainly a huge issue. But, gtk-2.0's accessibility enhancements include excellent keyboard support and some steps toward simplifying and unifying look&feel. KDE is moving in that direction as well. Obviously you need to use a single unified UI on your desktop, but having two decent ones available to choose from is not a bad thing (not to say that either is decent yet, but they're both heading there rapidly).
Sumner
rage, rage against the dying of the light
1) Irix is not a microsoft product. Score 1 for SGI.
2) The truely high-end stuff tends to be done on unix type workstations. Perhaps this graphics card garbage is true in the home market, but not on the professional one.
3) If you're willing to pay for X (you're willing to pay for windows aren't you?) You can always buy implementations that support the latest hardware.
4) There are X-Servers/Clients with extremely advanced graphics features. Again, you generally have to fork up some cash, but you're willing to pay for windows, aren't you?
I think part of the problem is the fact that there never seems to have been any coherent work done on this. The windowing system oriented people who work on X say "the toolkit authors fault". The toolkit authors would say "it's your drivers or the limitations of X Windows"
Nope, read the thread I quoted and you'll see that gtk developer Owen Taylor agrees and that gtk 2.0 includes some of the optimization mentioned. The toolkit and X11 authors do work together on these things, and the toolkit authors have had a huge amount of input into the design of the XRender extension and the DRI infrastructure.
While I do appreciate the flexibility of X Windows, I honestly DON'T think the windowing system and toolkits should be these totally orthogonal projects, and the toolkits just "draw as they see fit" on a canvas that they expect the windowing system to render dumbly. This is the X model, inherited from the dumb terminal days.
Actually that's not the X model (BTW, X wouldn't run on a dumb terminal--even vi wouldn't run on a true dumb terminal (ie glass tty)). The X model is to provide high-level graphics primitives to the application, which then submits them to the server which can turn them into whichever low-level calls are most efficient on the hardware in question. Not only that, but the library used to submit those request can (and does) batch them together so that the application writer can have a simpler model and still get efficient code--for instance, multiple XDrawLine calls are batched by XLib into a single XDrawLines call that's sent on to the server, saving on round-trips and in some cases saving on bus traffic to the video card by eliminating redundant traffic. Or servicing those high-level requests in whatever manner is most efficient for the hardware in use.
Highly efficient graphics can be done this way. Witness SGI, who were for years the undisputed leaders in the graphics field. They used X11.
But think of X as being more of a device-driver with a unified API, the GUI is to be built on top of that. It's a highly reasonable and well considered model that is ideal for building the high-performance GUIS of the future on. Far better than e.g. a framebuffer, which is already obsolete (doesn't handle many 2D features like overlays & alpha blending, doesn't do 3D acceleration, doesn't allow for hardware security a la SGI, doesn't handle hardware video decoding, etc) and is low-level enough that you can't have the driver do intelligent optimizations without rewriting the apps. And designed with the foresight to be extremely flexible.
Sumner
rage, rage against the dying of the light