Slashdot Mirror
Keith Packard's Xfree86 Fork Officially Started
Reivec writes "I was having a discussion with Keith Packard on IRC about the current developments in the XFree86 Saga and
politics already discussed here earlier, and I learned many interesting things. The project has a new website, xwin, and things are getting underway. 'We're in the process of building community, from that we can construct a government. It's a hard process to construct a representative system from what we have now, so it will take a bit of time. Weeks, not months. --Keith'" Read on for some more details. Update: 04/13 03:30 GMT by T : Reader Khalid points to this informative interview with Packard at Linux Weekly News, too.
"
The site is has only been up a day or so and there isn't a lot on it right now, but he would like to see a lot of community involvement on the site and many user submitted stories to get conversation rolling. A french site has already taken
notice and posted some information on xwin as well. Since such a fork could make a large impact on many *NIX users, I felt the need to ask, 'assuming you had an active fork under development, how interchangable would you expect it to be with Xfree (assuming release builds). Do you think distros would be quick to change if it offered improvements? Or could they
provide both and have the user choose upon installation?' Keith replied, 'Given that distros will have input into how it gets built, I expect they'd be interested in a version closer to what they need. And, given that RH and Debian maintainers are both actively encouraging changes, it's hard to see how they wouldn't want to follow. (or lead).' So if you have had any interest at all in the XFree86 development, this is definitely a community site you should
take advantage of."
Sounds kinda totalitarian to me. . .
I am over here... now I am back over here!
Wow, It's been a long time since something comparable happened. I guess the glibc/libc split is probably the closest. That settled out reasonably quickly, (though it left some freakish version numbers that still cause trouble). I suppose one can hope for something similar here.
/. interview?
X development has been somewhat slow, but it seems like the really big issue has always been drivers -- is there any way that new leadership can help get specs from manufacturers?
Editors: can we get Keith for a
Oh, and, FSP? (first substantive post)
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
It seems to me that if they are going to fork they might as well do something right from the ground up. They could build something like Quartz Extreme and then add the old version of X11 on top of it like Apple has done with OS X. Lots of possibilities!
Actually, it's strangely democratic. Seriously, the vast majority of successful Open Source projects have a single maintainer. X hasn't, and some might speculate that that's part of it's problem. I guess this has to be done to attract a large number of old X developers, but I really wonder if a benevolent dictator could make things work better (and if not, just use XFree86).
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
True. I was being just a bit facetious, as you probably could surmise. In any event, I think that any type of project needs the go-to-guy who is going to make decisions. Without it, you get a lot of hee-hawing about what to include, what to take out, etc.
I am over here... now I am back over here!
If I were to guess, several months ago, what fundamental OSS project would fork next, I would've picked XFree86. The signs were all there. Slow pace of development. Closed inner development core. Bugs left unfixed.
I'm about to upgrade my machines. The new release comes with XFree86 4.3.0. I'm already aware of some stuff that works in 4.2 but is broken in 4.3. There was no response to a couple of bug reports that I sent in last year, so it's not a surprise to me.
I'm waiting the obvious forthcomming trolling, from the peanut gallery, about the fork, and how its going to be fodder for the OSS lobby. I do not find it a problem. I see it as a natural evolution of things. It's just like 4-5 years ago, when RMS was dragging his feet on gcc development, egcs got forked, and eventually became the new gcc. Right now, gcc 3.2 is a damn good compiler, and I doubt that we'd have it, without that fork.
OSNews has had so many of the articles recently posted before /. so why not read osnews?
I went to xwin.org but could not find any type of list of what they hope to achieve. Not a good start for a project. Perhaps they haven't quite got around to posting the list.
Here's what I'd like to see done:
1. Performance. There needs to be some serious performance boosting. Rip out a whole lot of fluff. Honestly, how often do you need remote xwindows? Yes, there is a use for it, but that should be a seperate build altogether.
2. Standardization. Flexibility is nice, but having every damn program do things differently is annoying. It's also a very bad thing if you are trying to break into the mainstream.
3. Easier configuration. It can be a real bitch to get xwindows running properly. Considering the huge amount of differing hardware in the wild, I'm not so sure it would be possible to simplify it too much. Oh, well.
My 2 cents.
-- Will program for bandwidth
That's towel. Whatever you do, take care of your towel. Honestly, how did you ever last this long without one? I suppose you've lost your copy of the book, too?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
42.
I suppose you've lost your copy of the book, too?42.
For more info go here. Last line of the song says it all.
I am over here... now I am back over here!
A simple to install windows 32 installation image.
/.'ers, but many many companies spend tens of thousands paying for Exceed licenses for win32 platforms.
Yes, bitch all you want, linux
There is no "fluff" there. X11 runs as a separate user-mode process from applications. That means that commands to it need to go from the user process to the display process. X11 uses an asynchronous protocol and a mixture of shared memory and UNIX-domain sockets. And for games and other applications, there is DRI.
It happens to be the case that the X11 protocol and semantics are well-enough defined that the same protocol works over fast networks, but you don't pay anything for that.
Macintosh (as far a I can tell) works the same way: a display server, user mode applicatins, and some IPC mechanism connecting them. The only reason remote display for the Mac doesn't work like X11 is because it lacks some high-level primitives.
Windows used to start out as a frame buffer library, but it, too, works pretty much like X11 these days: asynchronous communications between user-mode processes and a display server running in a separate address space. The only thing NT/XP do differently is that the display server runs i the kernel. You could put an X11 server in the kernel, but it probably wouldn't make a big difference in performance (and it would be a headache).
When a particular X11 implementatin is slow, it's usually because of bad drivers or bad configuration. With comparable drivers, X11 performance is top-notch--usually better than Macintosh and comparable to Windows. And many X11 applications are slow or inefficient because their developers assumed they were programming a frame buffer--an assumption that is wrong on all major GUI platforms these days.
In short, this "X is slow because of network transparency" is wrong in multiple ways. First, X11 is not slow compared to other popular windowing systems. Second, nobody has ever been able to describe a way in which X11 could be made faster by choosing a different IPC mechanism. People who criticize X11 for using IPC usually assume incorrectly that other systems don't use IPC, but they do.
2. Standardization. Flexibility is nice, but having every damn program do things differently is annoying. It's also a very bad thing if you are trying to break into the mainstream.
X11 is standardized. What is not standardized is GUI environments and toolkits. But there is a reason for that: people are still figuring it out. It's software evolution in action. And it's not like Windows or Macintosh have figured that one out either: on Windows, people use dozens of different toolkits, several of which come from Microsoft Similarly for Macintosh. Gnome and KDE are making an effort to interoperate, and that's all you can ask for.
Also, there are plenty of programs that need to "o things differently". X11 is not just a desktop window system, it's used for scientific and engineering applications, customer terminals, ATMs, banking workstations, embedded systems, and lots of other applications. Those environments should not look like a regular desktop.
3. Easier configuration. It can be a real bitch to get xwindows running properly. Considering the huge amount of differing hardware in the wild, I'm not so sure it would be possible to simplify it too much. Oh, well.
I think people are doing as well as they can, given limited information from manufacturers.
But because X11 is standardized, you can always buy a commercially supported X11 server. Those usually run very well on the latest hardware. If you are using XFree86, you are using something that's both free and experimental.
As far as I can tell, "the split" is over none of these issues. Both branches will remain network transparent window systems, they will remain compatible, and they will continue not to force toolkits or desktop software on users. If they tried to, they would cease being X11 implementations. What Keith probably will do is accelerate bug fixing and bringing extensions into the X11 server. And that's what really matters.
The only thing I'm worried about is Microsoft leveraging this
to knock up the FUD factor another notch (bam). I've got visions
in my head of 'can't trust those free software people, they've
got personal agendas, major breakup, project may die, Microsoft
has always been a wonderful unified blah blah blah'.
I sure hope there's a prepared statement from XFree86 and Mr. Packard
to counter this, should this become an issue.
Another OSS fork? Can't help but think of the Talking Heads - "We're on a road to nowhere"
I personally think that remote X is one of the most amazing thing about X Windows. Especially in the office environment.
I personally would like to see the remote X windows feature kept by both forks, but as an installable option instead of bloating X out for those who have no need of it. Both need to be an option.
Perhaps a separate xserver-xfree86-remote option instead of choosing xserver-xfree86?
Regarding the forks/split of X projects, the last thing I'd like to see is a lack of standardization in the GNU/Linux arena for X. One of the most option used complaint about GNU/Linux is the lack of standardization (even with the LSB).
From the GCC FAQ
In April 1999 the Free Software Foundation officially halted development on the gcc2 compiler and appointed the EGCS project as the official GCC maintainers. The net result was a single project which carries forward GCC development under the ultimate control of the GCC Steering Committee
This is another American lie. Keith Packard, American official, is NOT free, he was easily subjugated by our dauntless troops. And he possessed not a fork, but a knife of mass destruction.
what exactly does X lack? please. i have been using it for several years, and it has improved immensely, yes, but i have never had any problems with it. as forthe network thing, i use it in my classroom every day. i have a p3 serving up X to several boxes in my classroom, and not only has it never crashed, but it runs very fast over a 10/100 lan. why all the bitching? i don't get it.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
connect and stay on so i can see what the load handling tolerance is.
overload
"Shit or get off the pot," while quite an apt closing line, was misattributed. Randall was actually quoting "The Cider House Rules," by John Irving.
:)
Just thought you'd like to know
So how much effect is this split going to have on the KDE - vs - Gnome toolkits and the various window managers out there?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This is another American lie. Keith Packard, American official, is NOT free, he was easily subjugated by our dauntless troops. And he possessed not a fork, but a knife of mass destruction.
Note: I rewrote this message because some infidelic moderator modded it as offtopic. But I have no fear. Will trench my post and resist to the negative mods.
The remote ability of X does force design decisions in the protocol and interface, but you cannot remove these, because you would make "remote" impossible. Then you would have two display interfaces, one for local and one for remote.
You could make an argument that these design decisions are hurting X and that "remote" should be completely eradicated. That would be a logical argument (though I personally disagree).
But saying "remote should be an option" as though that is a physically possible solution is just wrong.
Even home users with only a single machine can take advantage of remote X sessions!
A 'killer' use case?
I can run applications from my home machine displayed on my workstation at work.
Connected through my cable modem at home, and my workstation (Linux, or Windows using Cygwin) at work. More importantly, I can do this over an encrypted ssh session through the proxy at work. This allows me to surf to any web sites I want without being monitored, and I can read personal email and chat on instant messanger without it being intercepted. And I can do this using graphical applications. There is also the benefit of being able to run software at home you couldn't install at work. I can install cygwin's xfree86 port, and use my home Linux apps on my Windows desktop. And with gzip compression built into ssh, it's decently fast too, even with my cable modems crippled upload speed.
Sorry, there's no way that "Either shit or get off the pot" can be attributed to John Irving. I'd heard it colloquialy many times long before the book was published (1996).
So, as far as I know, it's non-attributable. Though if anyone can find an older source, I'd like to see it.
'nough said.
....what happens first.
Forks often rejoin the root tree once they've accomplished their goals, either intentionally or otherwise.
I have a gut feeling that unless the xwin project really refactors (i hate that word) a LOT of stuff, it's not going to be something that people are dying to install, except for the bleeding edge/at-work beta tester (these guys really piss me off, they spend more time recovering from crashes than actually working) types.
Wait it out - software development (especially in larger projects) is a meritocracy -- no one pays attention to you unless you accomplish something that makes a difference. Given what I've read about the reputation of this guy, he's probably going to bring a lot of good, but lets just wait for it to happen instead of getting all reactionary, eh? You're just wasting your time. Parade or throw tomatoes when something *really* big happens.
I use it every day too. I had a decision to make. I wanted to play games that came out and run misc Windows programs reliably. I also wanted to have a stable platform where I could store my email, have xchat up, have various persistant processes running (for 120+ days of uptime now).
So what was I to do? Get Linux and install wine? If I enjoyed pain, sure. Or: Get Windows and run a webserver, mail-fetching programs, Python for windows, xchat for windows, blahblahblah for windows? No, I need a Linux environment, not just some of the applications that happen to be compilable under win32.
I made two computers. Linux box is headless, Windows box is not (of course). Installed windows, installed cygwin, installed XFree86 on the windows machine (easy, cygwin package), got remote login to work. Presto, Windows and Linux co-existing the easy way. The only improvement would have to be a seperate monitor and keyboard, but that takes up physical space.
how often do you need remote xwindows
More like, how often do I need local xwindows? My answer is "never." Don't treat remote windows like it's a party trick. I'd say it's the most important feature, period!
1) This isn't about XFree being fast for you. And if it performs as well as (say) Windows 2k or XP on modern hardware, then you've spent alot of time tweaking X, and probably your kernel. X should be decent out of the box, and it isn't. "Works good enough" isn't something that I personally like settling for.
;) What makes it feel slow are the window managers (or more correctly, complete desktop environment a la KDE/Gnome). For example: I have had Mandrake 9.0 on both a K6-2 450Mhz machine and this Pentium 4 1.7Ghz. (FYI: P4 has 512MB Ram, and the K6-2 has 128MB RAM) If I run KDE or Gnome on the K6-2, then yes, it is slow slow slow. Now, if i switch to say a light weight window manager like XFCE, then X w/ XFCE loads almost as fast as the P4 that is twice the computing power and more ram. (And by that, I mean loading XFCE + X on both machines.) X just isn't that slow.
:)
2) Standardization is absolutely a point of X. I don't know how you can think otherwise. One of the biggest objections to this port is the possible breaking of the X standards.
3) There is no reason whatsoever that XF86Config needs to be the monster that it is. A logical hierarchy of settings would be a good first step. Alot of the crap in XF86Config is handled by drivers using a standardized interface in Windows - this is a reasonable model to copy. That would help eliminate the need for every distro that's trying to be user-friendly to write it's own hardware detection program.
=======
1) X isn't really that slow. Quite quick for me, and out of the box, too! Just type "X" at the prompt and watch it pop up there nice and quick (with nothing else, granted
2) I think it is possible to fork and not break the standards.
3)Um, it is hierarchial last time I looked? BTW, Mandrake's user-friendly program is really cool (IMHO). There just needs to be a standard one like it that ships on every distro. Who wants to write one?
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) from Enlightenment project started to work on XCB ! ...
XCB seems to be the super fast replacement of Xlib keeping X protocol
More infos
So we can have a decent gtk based deskop enviroment that isn't AOLifed! Or maybe we can port gnome to motif where it belongs.
One major thing that seems to be needed is a detailed, up-to-date guide on how to develop fast graphical apps for xfree86. So many comments here saying "X is slow" are followed by comments blaming the toolkit/app developers.
A set of guidelines for modern xfree86 on how to get the best performance would help a huge fraction of the open-source world and improve the appearance of Unices on the desktop.
...what I would like to see is BOTH a local DRI (perhaps using SHM) AND continued network transparency.
Aside from that first time running Linux Doom over the network back in 1994 just to see how slow it would be, I have never had the desire to run a bandwidth-intensive X application over the network.
Yet, I still use X applications remotely, day after day---XEmacs, xmms, xterm, you name it---and I'm not about to stop.
Come to think of it, we already HAVE the two things I've listed above, so in fact, I'm already happy. Half-life under Wine plays frickin' fast, as does the native version of Wolfenstein 3D, and I can still run my other apps remotely.
I'd still be interested in seeing what Keith comes up with.
Finally, it sounds to me (from the older article that was linked to above) like David can go fuck off: if he doesn't use X anymore, then he should give up his spot on the XFree86 steering committee to someone with a stake in XFree's future. At a minimum, this should be someone who uses the damn thing!
Go, Keith! Some of the best applications in existence (XEmacs, gcc-3.x, and XFree86 itself) were adversarial forks.
Cheers,
Kyle
[ home ]
Actually, there is a great reason not to open source drivers: the fact that you can't write a graphics driver today without infringing on a top of phony US patents.
Both Nvidia and Ati can't open source their drivers because they would open themselves up to countless frivolous lawsuits. Heck, even trivial stuff like drawing a b&w mouse cursor by XORing is patented! Do you have any idea how much of the rest of obvious ideas relevant to graphics programming are patented?
As long as the preposterous US patent system is not abolished, I see no way for them to open source their drivers.
One of the main advantages of X is its universal.
Once you get an incompatible fork it will loose that and fall into total disarray, hindering the OSS movement.. if not killing it.
We are already convoluted as it is, we DON'T need this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It would seem to me that an easier problem (nor not!) might be to fix the body that directs where X is going. If X.org were to come out with enhancements to the standard more often, it would force the implementation groups like XFree86 and other commercial versions to get up off their ass and implement them.
What is the history of the X.org group and why has there been almost NO movment (at least not public) on growth with the standard?
I'm kinda curious what this means for the BSD and Linux families that use XFree86 now. Will they likely carry both? Will this mean lots of XFree86 software needing to be recompiled for the forked version, or will it maintain API, while changing whatever else? And what is the "whatever else" they're trying to change? I mean what are the goals of the forked version?
Simplicity for users. Xfree86 has been perhaps the single biggest factor limiting Linux's wide spread adoption (I can not count the number of times I have almost put my fist thru the moniter simply because some setting out of hundreds is wrong in some random text file)...
New technology is cool. Better configuration is manditory. I am looking forward to see how this plays out.
XFree86 should have been GPLed anyway.
I doubt a fork matters. Nothing really matters. But maybe if the fork is left open both projects can help eachother. Isn't competition a good thing?
I don't know much about the license for XFree86 or even if that's possible.
Just because it's a fork doesn't mean it's incompatible. Sure, some of the extra extensions may end up being incompatible- but when it comes right down to it, they're still doing X11, just as tons of other nonrelated X servers are. MetroLink's Metro-X and XiG's Accelerated-X are good examples of 3rd-party X servers, and many of the proprietary Unix vendors have their own X servers. These servers are extremely different, but they all use the X11 protocol, so though extensions may be different, apps ought to run just fine under any of them. Keith Packard's xwin isn't going to try to invent some sort of X12 protocol- it's an X11 server and thus will be compatible.
"I pointed out that you're not turning these people to "our side" when you play by their rules. Nothing you've said since has done anything to convince me otherwise. Fine, you're happy with a closed source system and binary drivers. That's great. But that's not winning them to "our side". You've been won over to *their* side. You might as well use Windows for all the good it does you."
I'll add my two cents. I've also pointed out in the past that most of the people who hold the viewpoint of the protagonist have failed history. Was it all that long ago that when companies whent out of business driver development died as well. Or Windows users had to face EOL issues with their hardware. How about the blame game when it came to bugs? Or the foot dragging when it came to resolution of problems? You would think that "once bitten, twice shy" would apply to former windows users (wanna bet what OS they just got off of?). Pragmatism is nice when it works in your favour, but is a bitch when it doesn't. Idealism is the reverse, and for a world conditioned to instant gratification, and risk aversion you get the prevalent attitude manifested on this board. You see it in the "Flash isn't proprietary" threads ( No one has learned their MP3 or GIF lessons apparently). So ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the world that Pragmatism built. Looks a lot like the old world that consumerism built.
After thoroughly scanning xwin.org, I concluded:
There is no source code to any implementation of X available on xwin.org.
Without source code available for download, you can hardly call this an "official fork", can you Slashdot? Maybe a fork exists on Keith Packard's personal home computer, but until it is made available to the public, there may as well be no fork at all. Sounds to me like they are still just in the planning phase.
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
scripsit Jimithing DMB:
According to the Library of Congress, Cider House Rules: A Novel was published no later than 1985. According to IMDB, Clerks was 1994.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Thanks. I must have seen the date for a reprint (which I was afraid of) but I figrued since the author was still alive and even did the screenplay that chances are the book hasn't been around for that long. Didn't realize Clerks was as old as 1994 either.
Even at 1985 I still don't believe it's an original quote. My guess is that Irving wrote it down because he'd heard somebody use it and thought it was a good quote.
scripsit Jimithing DMB:
I couldn't say... I was quite sure I'd heard the expression pre-1996, but I can't be sure about pre-1985. That's not the kind expression we were encouraged to use in elementary school ;)
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
It took about five minutes.
Yes, I do mean from the time I typed "netscape", [enter]
And yes, I do know nowadays to use something like SSH rather than telnet for those purposes. I was young(er) and more ignorant then.
Be careful! New moon tonight.
Of all the components of unix systems that I've used, X has been one of the most stable and reliably backward-compatible. I'd never had a program stop working because of an X upgrade until Xft came along. And I'm very dubious about releasing components of X independently (apart from new hardware drivers) - it looks like a recipe for the version-number hell that X has avoided until now.
...that xfree is just one implementation of the x11 protocol? in my opinion (and many others, as it seems) another implementation (or fork) just makes x11 stronger.
;)
i'm sure beer will cease to exist if one starts another brewery
more choices just grows the fanbase.
i find myself to be a pretty good tech (i acctually am a tech) and know a thing or two about how things work. I don't, on the other hand, have any talent when it comes to coding/development. count me out unless it's simple scripting (perl, bash, php). I have but one question -- will this new fork...
1. be binary compatible w/ XFree Drivers (cough nvidia cough)
2. acctually have things done in a timely matter 3. will have no effect on me except i will ahve a faster, more efficient desktop. I don't wnat to re-learn a new config format, I don't want to re-compile KDE every time "Xwin" or what they are going to call it ahs a release. does anyone have this info? i looked on xwin and couldn't find it.
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
The conference call is a veritable who's who and
their comments quickly become a what's what.
The transcript leads me to believe is that RedHat is about to become *bigger* than they already are in the community.
X.org got some problems, as now there is money to be made, and they aren't getting the job done.
Secret lists, non community responsive BOD. Arbitrary CVS access, etc. Hrm.
Go Keith P.
X is good, XFree is better, Xwin might just kick ass.
Would a kernel module providing a standardized API to drivers be a good way to provide an alternative to x that would be faster? (as long as it doesnt take down the kernel)
Reading this forum sometimes reminds me of the eliteist additude many of you have. Your reply to the question of how often are the remote aspects of X needed is "everyday, what are you? retarted?" Do you honestly think you are better than everyone else becuase you use the remote abilities?
You seem to forget that the VAST majority of users are not geeks or techs or engineers, but are your everyday user who is looking at a computer as nothing more than an appliance (yes i suck at spelling). As such, it should be transperent to use. If you want remote abilities, fine... but please don't assume that you are so much better than the rest of the world because you can make use of it.
For every person you show me who preaches about the remote abilites of X, i can probably show you 2 who would not be sure how to turn a computer on (and i'm not talking about third world commutnities here). Remember, the majority of users still can't figure out how to program their vcr.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
yes: The Cider House Rules - William Morrow 1985 1st Trade Edition
The quote itself dates back to Rome in various variations, IIRC.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Maybe this new fork could support java2d much better than the current X server.
An interesting aside: around 1995 I was running a Cyrix 486 DLC (40Mhz) and experimenting with Linux, but primarily running DOS.
A friend came over, and we played Doom for a while. He mentioned that it was somewhat slower than on his computer, and I was a little peeved, pointing out that he DID have a 66Mhz DX2 with loads more memory. He admitted that, given the difference in machines, the speed wasn't at all bad.
It was only a quarter hour later that I began to realise that Doom was going a little slower than even I was used to. So I figured I would quit, check the config.sys and autoexec.bat and reboot to see if there was any change.
But on quitting I was surprised to find X Windows! I had completely forgotten that I had been running XDoom. But that's not the good part. I had started XDoom as a way to entertain myself while waiting for the kernel to compile ... and it was still busy!
Doom on X running at near-DOS framerates ... with a kernel compile in the background. Gotta love it.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
your wrong!
Most of Linux's current comercial advancements require Remote Desktop to function--that's the value linux/bsd brings. The current crop of paying users need true remote access for server farms, remote offices, ISP's, etc...It's the one of the key used features! Throwing it out isn't an option! Right now geeks and engineers ARE STILL the userbase. Even in an office, the users may not need it, but the admins live by remote access to simplify/automate their work! Again, the feature adds too much value to remove!
That said, there should be some effort to "streamline" functions. A neat idea would be to look at the standard install [say debiam stable] and look at all the features all the software uses. Then Re-allocate the functions accordingly. Maybe some KDE/Gnome features belong in X, maybe some Apache features need move to X, maybe it's the other way, and X features can be move by special purpose "up" to the apps/libs that use them most often. Look at something like Knoppix, the CD has almost 1.5 GB of stuff. If it's all Open Source, couldn't the WHOLE SYSTEM be optimized to reduce the size and maintenance costs?
More than anything else, that's what needs to happen with linux in general. Just admit that certian programs are "Standard Linux" and expected always to be there. Then optimize the whole group of them to work together! This would be preferable to each side trying to "tweak" it's own stuff thru "bending" the APIs to get better results for it's program and conflicting with all others!
So... I've read quite a lot of posts about how Remote X is such a great thing, i've become quite curious... But none of the posts mention how to do it. Anyone care to share knowledge?
As I became more and more familiar with linux I stopped using MS Windows entirely.
Having given away that old WinModem long ago, I recently bought a new internal modem from US Robotics ( a brand that I used to trust ) when my puppy ate my old Diamond Multimedia external modem. It worked fine on my wife's Windows partition, but I could not get it working on linux. So I looked up winmodems again, now pissed at US Robotics for putting out a crappy modem. I discovered that PRETTY MUCH ALL internal and usb modems are WinModems because the manufacturers leave out the controller chip in the modem and emulate it with proprietary software. So I returned the $25.00 US Robotics modem to Wal*Mart and bought an external serial Modem Blaster from Creative labs which although it cost $65.00, worked great under linux with no special drivers.
I have a Pentium 4 computer, and there have been WinModems since before the days of my old P1/233. The emulation does not significantly slow down the download speed or the performance of even the old P1/233 and certainly not a new P4.
I am not pissed at US Robotics for leaving out a controller in their modem to save me $35 bucks. I am still annoyed with them for not publishing their specs so people can make linux drivers for them. Some manufacturers DO publish their specs and for those, you can download drivers off the internet. Thankfully WAL*Mart took back the modem though.. If US Robotics would have published the specs for their modem, then I would have been able to download a driver for it and install it and would not have returned the modem.
I would rather give up a little unnoticable quality to be able to pay a lower price for a piece of hardware. Let those who want only the very best pay for it not me. So I would not hold 'cheats' against a video card company, I would consider the cost savings as good engineering on their part.
But not publishing the specs? That's silly. Software is patentable. In fact I am sure that nVidia and others pay each other megabucks to license patented accelleration techniques. That is one thing that worrys me about M$ buying OpenGL - Is it even possible to write a free OpenGL like library should MS decide to make it miserable? Give up your R&D budget by publishing the source to your drivers which are merely interfaces to your hardware? Silly! Any new and valuable IP produced by their R&D departments gets published and patented in the USPTO.
Eat at Joe's.