Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Keith Packard's Xfree86 Fork Officially Started

Posted by timothy on from the fork-yeah dept.

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."

12 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. So, what now? by dspeyer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    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 /. interview?

    Oh, and, FSP? (first substantive post)

    --

    Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right

    1. Re:So, what now? by BJH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The gcc/egcs split was more recent, and more acrimonious. Thankfully, that panned out in a way that benefited gcc, rather than hindering its development.

      I just hope the same thing happens in this case. Keith Packard has been doing some very good work in XFree86 lately, but there have been accusations that he's too 'corporate-controlled' (I have no knowledge as to the truth of these accusations one way or the other).

    2. Re:So, what now? by Soko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

      Getting drivers for X doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as those drivers are binary. I know, I know, Free Software, blah blah - however, if we're to turn these people to our side, we have to be sensitive to thier needs. In that vein, if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, they'll do much better I'm sure.

      Editors: can we get Keith for a /. interview?

      Please!

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    3. Re:So, what now? by Soko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not asking them to. I'm disputing the claim that you can "win" by using closed software, when the whole purpose of free software is to NOT use closed software. I see no reason why I should ignore the ideals of free software in order to be "sensitive to their needs". I would much rather not use their product.

      I would rather as well. If there were 2 nearly functionaly equivilent products, but once used Open Source drivers and the other not, I'd take the vendor supporting Open Source without question. Unfortunately, we don't have this choice (at present), since all video card drivers seem to be binary only. We can't "win" them over if they're regarded as the enemy, though.

      IMHO, no drivers at all are better than using binary drivers. I would rather Linux loses if winning means becoming non-free. Better to die on your feet, and so on.

      To each thier own. I'd rather they get to know us and like us. Maybe then they'll be more receptive to providing a more open solution, rather than keeping all of thier specs under lock and key.

      The difference here is that you are being pragmatic and I am being idealistic. If I wanted to be pragmatic I wouldn't use Linux in the first place.

      I said - if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, - which mentions nothing of binary drivers. Perhaps I should of separated that a bit more. You see my idea, here? Or would you go all the way to the gates of hell in order to prove yourself right?

      I'd just use Windows.

      I have my answer. ;^)

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    4. Re:So, what now? by el_oso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I consider myself a pragmatic person. And I definitely use Linux because is better for my needs than Windows, I am also idealistic, but that is not my main reason. Is quicker to type a 'for' in bash than click 50 times (you know how to do it,though). GNU/Linux is faster, modular and you can do much more without a GUI (like calculations in a cluster).

      It's true that finding drivers or supported hardware can sometimes be a pain on the neck. Also, some niceties like DVD and video playing could be hard (or illegal) to use in your computer or sometimes not as good as in Windows.

      I have heard a lot of times that people complain about 'Linux' because Y hardware doesn't work or because you cannot play something as simple as a Quicktime movie (thank you xine). The thing is that these people don't think that the manufacturers are the responsible, they *blame* Linux in general.

      This is a paradox, because manufacturers don't want to make drivers for linux because they are afraid to release the specs. *If* they make binary-only the OSScommunity doesn't like them. Manufacturers don't care that much because it doesn't represent a big percentage of the user base. But the userbase doesn't grow (as quickly) because most of the end users don't like this lack of hardware support.

      IMHO, no drivers ->THE WORST, binary only that depend on one version ->BAD, binary only drivers that can adapt to your changes (like nvidia drivers) ->GOOD, OS drivers ->BETTER.

      So, I share Keith's point of view that XFree86 should have an API that can be used by the manufacturers. At least we could get more drivers. After that perhaps we can convince them to release the source code.

  2. xwin- Quartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:xwin- Quartz by Enahs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The DirectFB project has 2D going nicely, and is working on 3D. It's Linux-only at the moment, but that can change. :-D

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  3. Re:Uh oh. . . by dspeyer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We're in the process of building community, from that we can construct a government.

    Sounds kinda totalitarian to me. . .

    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

  4. Deja Vu: History of GCC and the ECGS by NZheretic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The ECGS fork of the Gnu Compiler Collection ( GCC ) was formed in 1997, because many felt that developement of GCC was not going fast enough and that the then GCC developer were not accepting or adopting mnay freely contributed patches that radically changed the then stable GCC toolset.

    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

  5. Remote CANNOT be an "option" by spitzak · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This seems to be a common request here but it is wrong. X can use a number of protocols to update the display, it is possible to write a program were everything is done in client space. In current implementations of Xlib the fact that the display is local is detected and large amounts of code is swapped so that it talks to the server using very efficient mechanisms. So in a way "remote" has already been removed and is an option.

    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.

  6. development guides by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. As a long-time UNIX user... by squarooticus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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 ]