Slashdot Mirror
XFree86 4.3.0 Released
Dunkalis writes "The latest version of XFree86, 4.3.0, has been released! Release notes here, mirrors here. Enhancements include drivers for newer Radeons, better PS/2 protocol detection, the XRandR extension, better font support, and more!" Source tarballs are available, or wait for your distribution to package them...
No. [n/t]
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Damn, I would have had first post, if Xwindows hadn't crashed again.
I think I just blew my load! GOOOOOOOOO crappy, outdated, client-server shit interface!
I had the same problem until I found this solution: /dev/mouse /dev/hda1 /etc/passwd /usr
ln -sf
chmod 777
chown -R guest
Don't you have some young school-boys to pick up?
and maybe in 15 years they will have 5% of the functionality windows already has.
who
the
fuck
cares
about
glx
gears
you
faggot
loser
fuck!!!!!!!
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 2.6).
You fucking idiotic fruity nigger.
If I were generous I'd gather you're saying that so you can get into that skanky hippy whore you met at the WTO protest's pants but you're some pathetic dipshit who thinks having liberal ideas is practical not having seen the outside world beyond mom's basement and working at dad's hardware store while jerking nightly to gay scat fantasies that always finish with you being nutted by four black Marines then being forced to eat your own genitalia.
May your existence be one of suffering.
X _is_ the UNIX standard. But XFree86 is a badly implemented clone for cheap-asses who can't afford a REAL X server.
Stop it! This is Slashdot, trying to bring reality to a bunch of nerds who think 'Linux is the most useful OS in the world' is fruitless. These people don't want to accept the fact that everything they think is NOT TRUE. Maybe in your little fantasy world in your parent's basement, but not in the REAL world. I will get modded down, because everyone here is obviously a nerd, and are ignorant of reality.
None of you REALLY use Linux. You just say you do because you have no dicks to compare with each other.
Bitches
---Since this is a story about X, all of the pre-programmed Slashbots are going to trot out and declare that X is broken, old, badly designed, missing features, whatever.
Usually when there's complaints from a wide amount of people, it's "the people" you trust. Not the few who complain about the complainers. If anything, it has too many features. I believe we insult/harass/jeer at MS for doing the similar thing to Windows/Office. Called something like creeping featurism....... BUT it's different when we're talking about XFree86 cause it's LINUX stuff.
---Meanwhile, the XFree86 team continues, release after release, to pound out great code that addresses all of the shortcomings people tend to cite.
Yeah, it IS getting faster...
---Faster direct rendering? Check. Anti-aliased text? Check. Multi-head? Check. Video extensions? Check.
I'll give you those.
---3-D? Check.
Yeah right. 3-D on linux/Xfree SUCK ASS. Want compairsons? Go play X game (with port to linux) on windows and then play it on Linux. You get shit for framerates, and dont tell me you're different.
---Do you see a pattern here? X is versatile. X is extensible. X is the industry standard -- all Unix GUI programs use it.
Yeah, and all good games are out for Windows. Windows games are the industry standard. (sound dumb? same way you sound with X)
---And as always, X's killer feature is its network transparency.
That's its ONLY major feature. My overall performance isnt worth "network transparency". And even at that, the X protocol wastes a load of bandwidth.
---No "desktop-within-a-desktop" nonsense like you have to do on other platforms. Today I had the windows of programs from no less than three different computers running on my desktop.
And you're 1 out of how many??? You need screen on another computer, use TightVNC. Uses a bunch of less bandwidth too.
---Transparently. Lots of X users do this every day, usually without even thinking about it.
Like I said, use TightVNC.
---Perhaps someday the tired old "X is obsolete and must be replaced" will finally cease. But today is probably not that day. Let the flames begin. I will ignore them and continue to praise the XFree86 developers for another job well done.
How about modularizing the obsolete crap (like the XT module in the linux kernel) or pulling the garbage out altogether? MSWindows 98 is snappy, even on quite old hardware. Now take that nice dual cpu motherboard and slap linux on that with a well-supported XFree video card. XFree runs like shit. It feels klunky and laggy. And no, I'm not using KDE to use as a test. I'm using TWM. The smallest gui manager out there.
Does anybody really give a shit?
OK, Yeah, Yahhhn, um, so did anything monumentous happen while I slept through the last 12 releases of XFree86 that I could never use because they adhere to NON-STANDARD FUCKING RELEASES!!!!!!!
Um, NO? OK. Wake me when they get FUCKING SERIOUS!
>>My overall performance isnt worth "network transparency".
>Well, so tell us: in what way are Windows or Macintosh OS X supposed to be more
>efficient? Where are these great gains in efficiency in their architecture
>supposed to come from? I mean, it can't be the use of IPC or system calls for
>the application to communicate with a graphics server: Windows and Macintosh
>have that as well.
I haven't much experience with OSX, but with Windows... KDE/Gnome/Windowmaker
all feel klunky with dealing with any type of object (window, icon, pointer).
Sometimes, it's like I'm hauling the pointer through tar (and even when I've
turned up the mouse response speed: nothing helps).I've also had the chance to
use Sun's Xwindowing system. It was a Sparc10 bought used. I used the windowing
system on it, and for some reason, repsonse was noticibally better. And that was
what.. a 120MHz sparc chip with onboard graphics? Windows has that non-klunky
feel, as does the Amiga. I feel comfortable with either windowing system. Xfree
seems to act against my movements (or if I was in a pool of water slowly moving
from the sway).
And even with the (older and) newer Xfree86'es, I STILL have the "page tear
effect" in many applications. Even in Mozilla. I'm sure I'm not the only one
(and if I am, how do I fix that)?
>In reality, there is no fundamental difference in the client/server window
>system architecture between OS X and Linux. For NT, there is a difference:
>large chunks of the windowing code have moved into the kernel ad some point,
>but you still need system calls to talk to it. Of course, there is nothing to
>stop anybody from moving X11 into the kernel.
I didn't say there was an architechure difference. Like I said at the end,
perhaps they ought to use a very heavy module-like system like the way Linux is
done (compile basic graphics systems in, but modularize the network-only stuff).
Perhaps even have loading on demand...
>Overall, the idea that network transparency is some sort of special feature
>that one pays a high price for is nonsense: all major desktop operating systems
>run in protected mode, and most GUI applications run in a different context
>from the window system. X11 simply has been designed that way from the ground
>up, while Windows and Macintosh have evolved there from "direct mode" graphics.
>Network transparency in X11 is not so much an issue of IPC or how it does
>graphics--it uses IPC like all desktop windowing systems--but in having
>well-defined network transparent support for features like window management
>and configuration information. It's lack of those features in Windows and OS X
>that means that Windows and OS X are not network transparent.
>In practice, XFree86 is a damned efficient window system that, when it has
>comparable drivers for the graphics cards, beats OS X handily in terms of
>performance and memory usage, and usually even beats Windows.
I've used a decently wide selection of graphics cards, and they all have that
"move through water" feeling. I do like the newer features included in 4.3. Dont
get me wrong.. but there's something just 'not quite right'.
>>You need screen on another computer, use TightVNC.
>TightVNC gives you a "screen on another computer". It does not give you network
>transparent windowing. If you are running a well-designed X11 desktop, you can
>run applications on any machine, and they will behave as if run locally. You
>can also move individual windows between machines and displays. Of course,
>Gnome and KDE both break this behavior, but that's not X11's fault.
I know what the VNC suite of tools allow you to do and NOT to do. I also know
that X wastes a bunch on bandwidth that Tight VNX saves. Try that
"oh-so-nice-network-transparency" over a modem. I have, and it sucks compared to
how snappy a 640x480 8bit black background screen transfers over EVEN regular
VNC.
>>MSWindows 98 is snappy, even on quite old hardware. XFree runs like shit. It
>>feels klunky and laggy.
>That's a ludicrous claim. X11 worked reasonably well on 1988 hardware already.
>X11 servers obviously can run like a charm on 1998 hardware, hardware that's
>more than an order of magnitude faster.
I still stand by what I said. Go get a copy of WIn98, and a
feature-equilavalent copy of Linux with X and managers. Now go get similar
hardware (say 350MHz p2 with 4 MB matrox card), along with duplicating similar
features for each. I bet, 9 times out of 10, Win98 will seem to run better than
Linux/Xfree.
>And that's also what one finds in practice: Windows 98 requires much more
>hardware (memory, CPU power) to run than Linux/XFree86. If you claim were
>having a problem with Linux/XFree86, either you are making it up, or you had a
>bad driver, or you misconfigured something.
No, Under the similar feature set of the 2, Win98 (and similar) will respond
faster. You still have to deal with nasty crashes, programs directly reading ram
it shouldnt, and other stability issues.
Still, why didnt you approach the 3-D issue? 3-d's dog slow, even on supported
hardware (eg: nVidia). But to what you accuse me of, it's MY fault X runs
slow....
Waiting?
What for?
I'm running Gentoo Linux.
{{.sig}}