Slashdot Mirror
XFree86 10 Years Old
ChazeFroy writes "XFree86 is now 10 years old. To quote from the page, 'What makes this particularly eventful is that it is fully backwards compatible; this is a true testament to the spirit of the original X protocol of which XFree86 is its finest implementation.'" Ten years and
still binary compatible. Very cool.
XFree86 is now easy to install. Does anyone remember, back in the early 1990s, going through the agony of trying to get XFree to run on a Linux box? Why it didn't have 'standard' 1024x800 screen mode, I'll never know.
So driver manuals were dug out, guesses made for my monitor maxmum horizontal something rate. Huge configuration files edited. Even though, as a complete newbie, I had no idea what the various things I was changing did.
But! When it worked... I never went back to Windows again...
--- My dad's political betting
You fucking mod troll, you fool What is redundant is that after 10 years the apps still look like shit, and the WManagers rehash other crap that is deprecated.
Spin a top, bubble boy with the propeller hat, you fucking loon. Take a peek at OS X and see what even fucking crapple can whip up like a short order cook. That stuff looks and feels better than any of the festering shit out there attempting to be a GUI for *nix.
I love *nix, man, but the only useable rendition of it on a daily basis is an Apple product right now.
So mod away, fuckmod. It was funny.
Well, I hadn't started my experimenting with X 'til five years ago, but I distinctly remember buying a crappy PC at the time with low-end onboard video and having to wait six weeks for the X guys to write drivers for it. Man, that was painful! (What did I know, eh?)
Also lacking a proper connection at home, later on I stole literally hundreds of floppies from work to get X, Gnome and Enlightenment onto it. God, I loved that eyecandy. Anyway.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
For the inevitable "X sucks, I hate X, let's replace X, screw X" crowd: Suck eggs.
X works, works now, and has worked for over a decade. I can still run some very old, but very useful software, and I can do it in a network-transparent fashion. X is fast, elegant (not the code necessarily, the functionality), does 2D, 3D and applications wonderfully, and is free and fully multiplatform, across all *nixes, Linux, MacOS and Windows.
Come back when you have something that works for real work that isn't just a theory, and if it's better than X without losing any of the benefits or extensibility, I'm suree the *nix community will thank you for it. Until then, X and XFree86 (the gold standard) are here to stay, and that's a good thing.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
A standard widget and graphical component library. I don't care if you use GTK+, Qt, Motif or some other more or less perverted set of functions, they should all result in using the same components with the same look and feel. Let's say you create a menu in GTK+ with the ordinary commands. These instructions should be converted to draw the standard toolbar, using the user preference (menubar on top, in window, detachable...).
I don't see any disadvantage by doing this. You still get to program in the language you prefer with the library commands you prefer, but they all draw the same widgets. While you are at it, design a new clipboard system that works - base it on the existing code from the Gnome and KDE people if you want to.
Is there a reason not to do this? Is it technically impossible? If so, please explain why. I'm a programmer, but I'm not very experienced in X development.
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
Mac OS, 20+ years and still binary compatible. ;-)
(If this is not entirely accurate, I apologize...not trying to troll.)
Xfree86 is great -- I'm using (occasionally) it on Mac OS X.
The idea here is that X has efficiently managed to maintain full backwards compatibility efficiently.
... by not really adding anything new in the last 10 years.
;-)
I see your smiley =)
xinerama, render, shared memory, xv, truetype. To name just a few.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
OK. Now. It's your job to convince all the GTK+ and GNOME hackers that they should all start programming in C++ instead of the half-dozen languages they currently use, so that they can use the Qt toolkit. Obviously this requires a complete rewrite of all the GTK+ programs they currently have. To make this an easier pill for them to swallow, you should mention that they will also have the wonderful opportunity to rethink their component model, their a11y model, their i18n model, their UI generation method (for those who use Glade), and so forth.
Alternately, you can convince all those silly KDE hackers that their applications should all be rewritten to use GTK+ and the GNOME libraries. Similar to above, but reactions will probably be even more amusing.
Keep in mind, here, that these are the same people who are so flexible and open-minded that they hacked on KDE for literally years while Qt was available only with a non-GPL-compatible license (and KDE is GPL-licensed), which created the interesting situation where KDE was illegal to distribute at all. While some KDE hackers acknowledged this discrepancy, they didn't want to look bad so they refused even to add a license clause to KDE to allow it to be distributed with its Qt bindings. This would have been a simple exception clause - two lines at most. Instead, they (by implication) refused to allow anyone to distribute their software. (Many parties such as Caldera and Red Hat just "looked the other way" and distributed it anyway - strict license compliance took a back seat to customer demand.)
I mention the license difficulty not to reopen long-dead flame wars [oops, I probably did already] - because indeed the situation resolved itself admirably when Troll Tech relicensed Qt to the GPL - but to show the extreme loyalty these people have shown towards Qt, despite its former legal issues.
A third option is for you to do all the necessary porting work to move all your favorite applications to a single widget set / desktop framework. Pick whichever one you want, though you might keep in mind that if you decide on Qt, you will have to rewrite a lot of stuff in C++. Of course, you're rewriting a lot of stuff either way....
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Yes it is.
For most of us the killer feature is network transparency. There are many windowing systems out there which do a great job of running applications on a local CPU, rendering them to a local graphics card, and taking input from local keyboards and mice. This is, however, very limiting to those of us who have been accessing our machines over networks for the past 10 years. Only recently has the Windows world achieved remote access with decent usability / performance (and I'm still not sure if there's a Windows-based remote access solution that supports input devices other than keyboard + mouse), and most other non-X graphics platforms never even made the attempt.
It's not like we are asking for a bunch of esoteric features that only found in X11. We're asking for one basic feature, network transparency. Those who marginalise this feature probably don't understand what all it can be useful for.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Does XFree86 provide alternate color spaces as overlays? I have never tried, but I know sun hardware will allow an 8bpp program to run in a 32 bpp screen depth as an overlay. This would make things much easier than switching on the fly. I think overlays are better than changing screen depths ont he fly. There was a time when changing color depths would have been more important, for example my Voodoo3 needs to be in 16bpp mode for games, and 32bpp is nice for non-games. Also, people wanting to have really large screens most of the time, but added color depth at a smaller resolution is not so much an issue with cards with massively large amounts of memory, that can operate in massive color depths at any resolution.
I would say that a couple of years ago it would have been worth solving the problem, but now I say crank it all the way up and don't worry about it. I can certainly see the problem, old applications would never understand being told their colorspace has changed, though I would think you could slip something into the X libraries that could make it work for new and dynanicly links apps, but I'm far from an expert.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
<whew> - you just saved someone a lot of work. (:
Did you read the interview with Nat Friedman yesterday? Last question, third paragraph of his answer:
I hadn't thought of this, but it's a good point. You (or someone you know) could port Qt to use the Gdk graphics widget set, which is what Gtk+ uses. Since both Gtk+ and Qt support multiple display systems (both run natively on Windows, for example) the apps themselves shouldn't be much the wiser.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Some of the contributors to the "fortune" program (a random quote generator) had some affectionately nasty things to say about X windows. Under Linux, try fortune -m "X windows". A random sample:
X windows: Accept any substitute; Making the world safe for competing window systems; It could be worse, but it'll take time; Simplicity made complex; One thousand monkeys. One thousand MicroVAXes. One thousand years. X windows; It's not how slow you make it. It's how you make it slow; Warn your friends about it; A mistake carried out to perfection; Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems; The defacto substandard.
I will not speak of Qt, because I have limited knowledge of it. However, Gtk+ and later GNOME addressed many of these shortcomings in ways that made a great deal of sense. It also did so in ways that were portable to Windowing systems that were either variants of The X-Window System or different altogether, but still provided the basiscs of display manipulation and event model.
The core X Protocol is a wonderful way for applicaiton and display server to talk. XLib is painful, but you can abstract it and still live with it reasonably. Xt was simply unworkable.
Of course, these points are moot. Gtk+ today along with GNOME do much more than Xt or Xaw or Motif ever did, and there's simply no going back. Color management, font management, internationalization, window manager interaction, system- and user-level configuration: These are all things that todays toolkits do far better than was ever available in the bad old days.
Of course the way your modern audience here on Slashdot thinks of theming, this is terribly misleading. You could build wildly complex resource configurations that would hand-tweek the widget heirarchy of a specific application. You could also set background colors and such, but since there were no solid conventions (not at all in Xt, and not enough in Motif and Xaw), these were of limited usefulness.
X11: Even with compression it's still extremely slow on DSL lines. The main performance consumer are a mouse cursor and graphics.
X11: I've tried it also through 10Mb hub in LAN - works good to read mail in VM mode of XEmacs, as for GNOME - it sucks, a lot of bugs and error messages.
X11: Also, on both 10Mb and DSL, Mozilla's drag-n-drop behaviour becomes unpredictable. Without drag-n-drop Mozilla works fine.
X11: On 100Mb networks works fine with some annoying behaviour of GTK. Generally GTK and GNOME specifically is not good to run cross network - it seeks for some local resources, like audio, CORBA, which are different on different computers.
VNC: Comparing to VNC on windows platform on same lines and speeds: VNC is much slower in lots of situations.
Web: Comparing to HTTP/HTML on same lines and speed: X11 is certainly worse. However, the application base of X11 is still broader, although the rate of new-coming web-applications is much higher.
Conclusion: X11 is better than VNC on slow lines, but much slower than Web, but X11 and VNC are for different platforms. As for web, web is much more optimal for slow lines. Eventually, when virtually everything will be Web accessible - X11 as a network protocol will dye. But it will stay forever as a layer between desktop applications and X server drivers. Probably, instead of the war of GNOME and KDE, we may see something like a war of Mozilla and Xemacs desktops :).
P.S. GNOME is designed against networking principals of X11, probably, b/c GNOME designers want to see GNOME working without X11. Bad for GNOME (all driver problems) and bad for X11 (good application is gone).
Like you said, Sun *hardware* did this. Apparently XFree86 supports this, at least with Matrox hardware. Here's what mga(4) says:
"[the driver] provides support for the following framebuffer depths: 8, 15, 16, 24, and an 8+24 overlay mode.
All visual types are supported for depth 8, and both TrueColor and DirectColor visuals are supported for the other depths except 8+24 mode which supports PseudoColor, GrayScale and TrueColor."
I never needed something like that but I knew this because a colleague requested a G450 for a PC workstation he was to use alongside his trusty Octane, just for that feature... not that the G450 isn't an otherwise excellent choice for a workstation of course. I have one at home and it is the best thing I bought for my PC after that SMP motherboard...
I'm surprized that the individual distros don't come out with their own version. However, I think that it would be good to keep some standards so video card developers don't have to make anymore drivers.
X has come a long way, and it still has a long way to go. But I would point the blame at the video card makers for making new video cards every week and constantly updating the drivers every month. Don't they have any review boards to check the code for all possible improvements before they sell the parts to the public. Then there would just be one set of drivers for each card.
The thing that X and the distros are starting to do is to include information and drivers on a wide range of monitors and video cards in order to install them easily.
Setting up X windows should only take 10 seconds to pick your video card, distrobution, and monitor from a list. Then the OS and games should use the video card to it's fullest potential.
How do you feel about OS X? Just curious.