Slashdot Mirror
The XFree86 Fork() Saga Continues
Mortimer.CA writes "An article up on OSNews about the XFree story
mentioned earlier. Included is: replacing fontconfig with Sun's stsf; XFree86 co-founder David Wexelblat saying that XFree is today obsolete and should be changed; Keith Packard replying, and more."
Whatever happened to choice in this debate?
We can choose between various window managers, various linux flavors, and even office suites. Why don't we have a choice with our window system?
Why would it be any different for a fork of X for a choice between client/server and direct rendering, if backwards compatability was kept?
Would that not help the the people who only use Linux on their desktop, while allowing people with networks to use the tool, as it is now, that works for them?
Mechanism, not policy. Interface guidelines are the domain of toolkits and environments ala KDE, GNOME, not the domain of the low-level graphics subsystem like X or Fresco.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The notion that there is anything "direct" about Windows GUI rendering is silly. And for the Mac, it's even sillier, given that it uses a PDF-based system derived from DisplayPostscript. The world has moved to an X11 model, it's just that most application programmers haven't figured out yet that the world has shifted under their feet.
X11 needs major work, things like transparency, rendering, server-side vector graphics, etc.--and that is happening. But one thing it doesn't need is turn into a pretend-frame-buffer library. The other thing it doesn't need is to have a lot of junk and policy hard-coded into the server (widgets, window management, etc.), like some would-be competitors are trying to do.
i was optimizing my mandrake system for audio use, which meant installing a pre-emptible and low-latency patched kernel source package and recompiling it for my specific cpu / architecture
and that meant X turned from snappy enough to blisteringly fast
what is the problem with X then?
the problem is that the linux kernel is optimized on most distibutions NOT for low latency but for high throughput, due to its being used mostly for server boxes.
so if you actually take the time to either pick a kernel that is suitable for desktop use or compile one yourself (which I duly recommend, I learned a LOT from doing so) you have a high-latency/high-througput server kernel. X being slow has nothing to do with X itself, but on the kernel that is running underneath.
your comment about kernel tweaking is sort of like playing quake 3 on a p66 and complaining that its slow and ID software told you to (gasp) TWEAK YOUR COMPUTER! Unthinkable!
Jag pratar lite svenska.
With the modularization of hardware drivers in XFree86 4.x, this is much less of an issue. You can drop in your own hardware driver into a stock XFree86 (in fact, a binary hardware driver written for linux will often work on FreeBSD, it's that good). What more are you looking for?
- It's obvious audio must be integral. Integrate it.
Why is that obvious? I, for one, don't see it at all. XFree86 sends stuff to your video card and your monitor, the audio drivers send stuff to your sound card and your speakers.
- TrueType won. Get over it. Integrate it. Anti-alias it out of the box. Provide a simple means to cope with font substitution just like Microsoft does. End of font problems.
Wake up. TrueType is supported; it's easy to anti-alias (not everyone wants antialiasing, even windows doesn't do it out of the box); and XFree86 actually ships with some TTF fonts (luxi mono/sans/serif, which look lousy in my opinion, but that's not their fault -- they're not font developers, they take what people donate them).
- Create a standard window manager. All others accept the consequences of being weird. Life is short.
XFree86 does ship with a WM -- twm. Like it? I didn't think so. So they should replace it with something like, sawfish? Metacity? KWin? WindowMaker? You have all those options already, why ask XFree86 to add another useless option? What we possibly need is a standard specification that allows one to replace one compliant window manager by another.
- Base the programmatic interface of the whole thing (API) on something worthwhile. Trolltech's QT would be a good place to start. Sharp did it and it works fine. Plus there is an entire suite of application software already written to it. Gnome would be fine too, I don't care.
Again, if you like Qt, use Qt. If you like Gnome, use Gnome. What's the point of XFree86 making those decisions for you? It's all about choice -- in fact it's good that Qt and GTK+ are abstracted (especially Qt), since they can be ported readily to other platforms like MacOS and Windows, which means your applications can be ported quickly too.
More to the point, the main criticisms against Keith Packard come from David Wexelblat, who while saying that he supports open source, in his own words:
I personally don't have much interest left in hacking code; I don't code much at work any more, and not at all in my free time. If I ever do, I will do Open Source. Whether it will have anything to do with Linux or X, I don't know; I doubt it. It will probably have something to do with my other hobbies, and be Windows software.
Also:
Some of you may be too young to have any idea who I am. I, along with David Dawes, Jim Tsillas, and Glenn Lai, created XFree86 a little less than 11 years ago. I have been basically inactive with XFree86 for a goodly number of years now, but remain on the Board of Directors, and lurk on the Core Team. I care very much about this project and the people involved, and pop my head up once in a while to kibbitz when necessary. It's necessary now.
So, on the one hand he is interested but at the same time he does not contribute to the project, he believes X is obsolete and admits to only using Windows OS. It begs the question, if he so much cares about the project, why not resign and let someone por involved take his place?
I think we should take arguments from this discussion with a grain of salt.
Just because YOU don't, that doesn't mean that OTHER PEOPLE don't.
There's certainly some cruft in X11. Hardware has progressed to the point that forcing applications to notice details of the graphics card's colour model no longer really makes sense. And I'll be happy when TrueType is ubiquitous in X apps (it's getting there). But you can have my network transparency when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers.
Everytime I hear someone say "X really needs to die", they blame the wire protocol. Well, the first step in optimization is to prove that the optimization you plan to do is actually necessary.
I have seen a large number of projects where "blind optimization" involves reworking large chunks of code only to find out that they haven't really solved the real problem.
As one doctor put it to us a few months ago: "If you think your baby is colicky, she isn't."
Reading Wexelblats email where he basically tells people that this is none of their business, is like hearing an echo of the argumentation launched against new bylaws in the FreeBSD project.
If David is not actively contributing to XFree86, he has no business telling anyone how to run the project.
I think the active developers of XFree86, both committer and non-committers, should grab a copy of the FreeBSD bylaws and elect a new core team.
The FreeBSD bylaws are far from perfect, but it would be enough to get started and once the dust has settled, a revision to more closely match the needs of the new project can be made.
Poul-Henning Kamp -- FreeBSD since before it was called that...
I use it extensively almost every day I sit down in front of a computer to do anything more than check my e-mail. I think most anyone who has to do a fair amount of work on multiple UNIX machines also uses it frequently.
When I'm working remotely on Windows boxen using Terminal Services, I often find myself sighing wistfully and wishing Windows had a wire protocol. Terminal Services and similar solutions at their best are generally ill-concieved hacks and at their worst are just plain evil and rude.