Qt On DirectFB

Ashcrow writes "The feasibility for DirectFB to replace XFree86 just a little stronger thanks Maurizio Monge very first alpha release of Trolltech's Qt library for use in DirectFB. You can check out some screenshots or go straight to the source. And yes, it has been released as Free Software."

Comments

Good start, but not useful yet

[lakeland]

Now I guess we get to find out how much KDE assumes X11. Because there aren't many QT only apps out there.

Re:Good start, but not useful yet

[ispeters]

There's also an implementation of GDK, or something. (I don't completely understand GDK vs. GTK.) Take a look at the GTK+ link on DirectFB's homepage. Apparently we can also run GNOME apps on DirectFB.

Ian

Re:Good start, but not useful yet

[halightw]

>>Have you ever tried to write portable code with
>>only one machine to test it on? It isn't easy.

Try using VMWare and it becomes very easy to write and test code for multiple OS and configurations.

Re:Good start, but not useful yet

[puetzk]

many KDE programmers have, because of QT/Embedded (and the zaurus).

Konqueror, KHTML et all already have releases built to not need X (kdenox cvs module).

Now, for the more desktop-ish apps this is certainly true, and X11 usage is (unfortunately) rather sprinkled about.

The biggest single piece is probably replacing kwin, followed by the dcopserver.

Re:Good start, but not useful yet

[chowells]

While that is true, some parts of KDE do depend heavily on X11 and its API. One large part of this kscreensaver, KDE's screensaver engine. There are much smaller dependencies on X11 scattered around the rest of KDE.

Quite frankly I haven't got a clue how kscreensaver could be implemented without X11 yet, the DirectFB authors would have to implement something equivalent to the Xidle or MIT Screensaver extensions, or allow direct polling for information about the open windows/current mouse position (what kscreensaver does if Xidle or MIT Screensaver extensions aren't available).

Cheers,
Chris Howells
(kscreensaver maintainer)

Before all the flamers get in.

[mindstrm]

Consider this: What do you really NEED X for. Try to think bigger than unix for a minute.

Yes, X has remote display. That's a really useful and flexible feature in some situations, no doubt about it. And from a technical point of view, it's extremely elegant.
In reality, though, to a great many linux users, it's a neat trick that you don't necessairly NEED.

We use QT or whatever and try to design desktop systems (KDE, Gnome) which really just use X as a way to load up graphics primitives... those same systems could equally work on something else, with some great benefits in terms of speed.

From a GUI perspective, if you use all KDE apps, for instance, things have a very nice consistent feel to it. Same with gnome. When you start mixing things, plus mixing in old X apps, you just detract from an overall experience.. so let's come out with a fast, standard display system taht's NOT x.... and use X rootless for those legacy applications we need.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[tomstdenis]

so first port motif, pango, gtk, etc... to DirectFB and then you can say "drop X, use DirectFB".

I mean its like saying "drop linux kernel, use QNX kernel" :-)

Tom

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[mindstrm]

I think you are missing the point.. we aren't saying "This is a drop in replacement for X" .. it's NOT X. I'm saying, to build desktop GUIs, we don't necessairily need to use X as a base.
Yes, that might mean that only apps written for that gui would work.. but that gui could be, say, QT (as the article is about) or something else.

See OSX for an example. Can I run X apps? Sure, if I fire up the X server. ANd they run just how you expect them to, they look the right way, and everything... but the apps that work really well use the native display library, not X.... and they work even better. And no, it's not because the X server sucks, in fact, the X server is quite good.

We are adding so much stuff on top of X we have to question if we really need what X provides, and if it can't be better provided better another way.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

"The good news is that they're not going to do that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Well, considering one of the founders of the XFree86 Project (and board members) has said that the *nix desktop needs to be replaced by a direct rendered model with an X interface on top of it (exactly the same thing but with faster local rendering at the cost of nothing) I would like to call bluff on your "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Because according to (at least one) XFree86 founder, it is broke, and it does need to be fixed.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[MbM]

When you do run a QT or GTK app over remote connection, the remote (server) library renders the widgets to x primitives which are then sent over to the local (client) computer to display.

Why is it that (to my knowedge) nobody has done this at a higher level? If the client already has a QT library why not simply send over a 'draw widget' command to that library, creating a proxy out of the server's library.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[goatboy_14]

GTK has already been ported to DFB.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Network transparency is a beautiful thing. I admit, my needs are a little exotic, but I happily run my computer from several dumb terminals (stripped down laptops).

Why maintain a stable of computers when you can have one ubermachine (and of course a few cruddy ones for DNS and webcaching.) The wife has a copy of Win4Lin for Quicken and Office. And I never have to worry about being booted off the "good" computer.

Hell, with my cable tuner in the big computer I can actually watch TV over the wireless. That is of course, if I had cable. I'm practicing living on Internet and DVD's alone. Apparently I missed something called "Reality TV."

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Jahf]

Ya know ... most people here "get it". It doesn't change the issue of applications. It is going to be harder to get the (li|u)n(u|i)x world to switch off of X than it is to get the Windows world to switch to Linux.

Switching from Windows to Linux still provides you with probably 95% application parity (MS Office -> OpenOffice, etc). Switching from X to DFB is probably going to be along the lines of 20% application parity.

It isn't that everyone loves X (although many do), it is that DFB is not currently a viable alternative for folks who need ready-made applications.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[edwdig]

SGI's toolkit works like that. Next time you have access to an SGI, try running Jot remotely. Won't work unless you're on another SGI.

I guess the problem is figuring out whether or not the library is remotely present, and falling back gracefully if it isn't.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[dubious9]

Yes, I'd much rather have alpha channel transparency than remote display. I assume DirectFB has an alpha channel because it is so prominant on their screenshoot, but is it really or is it the fake freeX86 transparency?

This is the only piece of "eye candy" that I miss from XP/2000 and I find that it is actually useful. And why after all this time hasn't X gotten an alpha channel? It seems like a lot of poeple would like this feature. Plus it makes using a terminal soooo much easier on the eyes.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[slyall]

I would not be happy to give up remote display. Not going to happen.

There is no reason why you can't run a X server over the top of a directFB desktop. This would enable applications that support the new system to run fast locally while X based Apps (remote and local) can take to the X server.

There are plenty of X servers for Windows and MacOS that plenty of people use already.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[mabinogi]

I don't get it, why do so many people think that

1. remote displays are the thing that makes X "slow" and "bloated"
2. That X is slow and bloated in the first place (put GTK or QT on top of DirectFB and you'll see the same "slow" "bloated" behaviour)
3. That remote displays are some obsolete technology that no one really uses any more? (If that's the case, then how come even Microsoft have finaly started putting the functionality into it's desktop operating systems?)

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Tyreth]

Fair enough. Good news then :)

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[WindBourne]

Don't get all hopped up over this. Assume that this go throughs. Then what will happen will be to move from X over SSH to VNC over ssh (vnc becomes a directFB). The speeds will be just fine (possibly better depending on what you are doing) as would the security. The only issue that I can think of would be the varied input devices that are possible with X that are with VNC.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Arandir]

In reality, though, to a great many linux users, it's a neat trick that you don't necessairly NEED.

In the midst of citing reality, you're ignoring reality. First of all, Linux isn't the only OS that uses XFree86, X11R6, or another X11 based windowing system. Heck, it ain't even the only free OS that uses it.

Second, even supposing Linux will achieve it's goal of "World Domination", where everyone must use Linux or be branded a luser, it's still ignoring the fact that Linux is a Unix-like operating system, and to confine it to only the home based game machine is to deny it 95% of its potential.

Third, that "neat trick" doesn't cost you a damn thing if you don't need it. The only thing holding back XFree86 performance is the fact that it must operate in userland.

I've heard the phrase "why keep it of 95% of the people don't use it", referring to the remote network capabilities of X11. Well, why not turn that statement on its head? Why support SMP in Linux, if 95% of the users don't use it? Heck, why do I need snowchains for my car if 95% of the time I won't be driving in snow?

Fact of the matter is, most people using Linux, BSD or UNIX outside of the home will want and need the networking capabilities of XFree86. If you want Linux to be confined to home game machines, then go roll your own distro. But in the meantime a lot of us want the capabilities of XFree86.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Anonymous Coward]

People have done things like that, and it sucked. The reason is that it requires any remote machine to have a compatible version of Qt and GTK and every other damned toolkit someone might want to use. This is an administration nightmare at best, and impossible at worst. (What if you have two apps, one on each machine, and they both require incompatible versions of some toolkit? Then you simply CAN'T display either app remotely without jacking up the other app, or adding some overwrought version management system. What if some app you use requires the very latest version of its toolkit for some interesting new widget it adds -- do you really want that to force an upgrade on every machine you might want to display that app on?)

To make this a little more concrete, let me make a little analogy. Imagine you have a web site, and you want to push more processing to the client. So, you change your dynamic PHP code into JavaScript code. Since you now no longer have the power to just say "this must run under version X of PHP, so we're putting that on our server", you have a choice: either make your app run in every javascript implementation that you might encounter, or place restrictions on what version(s) of javascript can be used to visit your site. If you had left it in PHP, there would be some disadvantages (slower, etc), but at least you'd know it would work with any browser.

Now, naturally, the "any browser" thing is a myth. There are quirks with different HTML implementations too. But this brings out an important point. Somewhat unlike HTML, the great thing about X11 is that it does something really simple. It doesn't concern itself with complex details like what a doubleclick means, what a button is, etc. It stays at a nice low level. As such, it's more easily possible to reach a point where it's matured and it's stable. The X11 that some person has on their machine will be compatible with everyone else's, by and large, because it's at a low level and can be stable and mostly unchanging.

So, while X11 isn't a paragon of simple, elegant, modern, clean design, it or something like it (with the same goals of sticking only to universal primitives, but maybe also with support for changing resolutions, etc.) is a very beneficial thing for the reasons similar to why Swiss banks are a beneficial thing.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[caseih]

Isn't this backwards, going back to a dumb (albeit accelerated) framebuffer? X does much more than just push pixels. If you take a look at how Microsoft does their gui these days, you'll find that it's a lot more like X these days than a framebuffer.

I own a zaurus and was initially impressed with the Qtopia/OPIE user interface. That is until I hit that one design flaw: They write directly to the framebuffer. This means I can't mix and match gtk programs with qt programs. This means I can't develop any non-free apps at all, since QT is GPL and that's the only thing you can run on Qtopia.

As I disected QT/E, I found that it pretty much had to duplicate many things that X does well, like windowing. Yep. And event handling and exposure stuff. Personally I think the Qtopia guys would have been much better off using the mini KDrive X server and use a modified version of QT/X11.

As soon as I can, I'm blowing away Qtopia and not going to OPIE but rather to GPE, which is based on X. A much better solution. Check out their screenshots if you don't believe me how well X fits a handheld.

My point here is that I don't think this directfb idea gives me any more advantage than X does. Sorry. Furthermore, we'd just need an X server on top of directfb anyway to run our main apps, and that is essentially duplicating the drivers that X11 already uses to talk to the framebuffer.

The best improvement I think we could bring to X11 would be a special mode where each window is a live opengl surface. That way we wouldn't need to do "exposure" events and other things. Window dragging would be silky smooth. Other 3d effects could follow. Forget the frame buffer.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[buysse]

I don't want a whole bloody desktop with my remote X, thanks. I want a window. I want my emacs window, or my gvim window. (I actually do use both). I want an xterm, or a commercial product like ArcGIS with a single (fast) remote window. VNC is *not* an acceptable substitute for network transparency.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[jonsmirl]

>There is no reason why you can't run a X server
>over the top of a directFB desktop. This would

X server on top of DirectFB has already been written...

http://www.directfb.org/xdirectfb.xml

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[mark_space2001]

Why maintain a stable of computers when you can have one ubermachine

The thing is, while this is excellent advocacy, almost no one actually does this. Most people, at home, in a small business, or in a large corporation, have desktop machines, not thin client GFX servers. And they want to keep them.

There's a few legacy apps where X is required, but MS own's 90% of the desktop, and the desktop is not migrating to any *nix until the *nix's drop their 10 year old X server technology and move to something more modern.

I've lurked on several X formums for a while now, and there's seems to be a common thread. While X was written to run well on a very low end machine (one person said they had helped develope X on a 8 MHz 68000 CPU), everyone agrees that the current X desktop is rather laggy on much higher end machines. This has two reasons: lack of hardware accelleration support (good video card drivers for X are really hard to find) and the fact that modern apps do not do what X was designed to do.

Motif is a graphical desktop specification that is designed to run well on top of X. But no one likes the way Motif looks anymore, at least no one used to Windows or Apple GUIs. After 10 years, it' time for something new, IMO.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[eakerin]

And to a little more fuel to this one, using VNC requires a Framebuffer on the server(in this case the Farm running appliations, not the Display in normal X terminology), drastically increasing memory requirements.

With X the only memory needed on the server is the memory needed for the application itself, since all of it's drawing routines are done directly to the computer running the display.

Give it a try for yourself, Fire up the VNC Server on a unix system (Windows Users can't have 2 desktops on VNC anyway, so they don't get to complain), and check the memory usage for that, it should be approx Width X Height X Bits Per Pixel. (plus the overhead of VNC) Now compare that with the None needed for X, and I'll take X any day.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[kwerle]

I'm in a situation where I don't have physical access to macs, but I have to develop on them. Well, since I'm not on console, most of the OS is useless to me - particularly development and debugging tools like MallocDebug. I wouldn't be in this situation if it used X11.

Unless you used some other remote display tech like VNC. Which is freely available for OSX. Apple has some remote display stuff too, but I've never used it.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[AJWM]

I'm saying, to build desktop GUIs, we don't necessairily need to use X as a base.

While technically true, places that deploy masses of Linux desktops (Largo City, Florida for example) using cheap PCs as, essentially, X terminals weigh heavily against this.

Sure, average Joe Homeuser doesn't care if his GUI networks or not, any more that he uses Citrix on his home Windows box. But in the workplace where centralized configuration and personal desktop mobility are drivers of lower TCO, a network capable GUI is essential. WHy the fsck do you think companies spend all that money on the likes of Citrix anyway?

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[SN74S181]

Yes, but I want to run the same apps on an X server on any other machine on my network. The directFB apps won't do that. Once we start down an 'applications bound to a single framebuffer' path we're all stuck using KVM switches, VNC, and similar kludges; or we have to plant our butt in front of each machine to run graphical software on it. And both options suck.

I have found that people who hate the X Window System are people who don't understand it. Many come from a PeeCee background and still don't get the idea that the network means more than 'that drive over there on a server' and HTML.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Baki]

Why do ex-windows users keept claiming this? It is utter nonsense. X window has nothing to do with slow spread of unix on the desktop.

Do you really think business users are disturbed by too little FPS for 3 D shootere?!?

Yes, Motif is ugly. But it is not ugly because of X, but just because it is ugly. X is just a way to draw on a screen (locally or remotely). It is more than fast enough for any 2D needs one might have nowadays, even through a LAN. There are enough alternatives to Motif nowadays, but no single de facto standard has established itself yet. Do you think that by removing X and its network transparency, some elegant GUI toolkit suddenly establishes itself as de facto standard? Also on a direct FB it is possible to run many GUI toolkits.

There are more than enough hardware supported (2D) X windows drivers. How can you claim that X was designed for and ran well on a 8 Mhz 68000 CPU, and does not run well on current machines which are 100 times as fast?

As for people wanting desktop machines: "people" in fact want windows machines, because that is what they know and most are not interested in computers. However most incentives for introducing unix on the desktop in companies is to save cost, therefore the IT department/architecture forces the users whether they like it or not. Thus "thin clients" are introduced. Not the pure thin clients that are only a network terminal, but those that have the apps that are used most (office suite) installed locally and all other apps remotely, and running remotely via X.

That is a great solution, because it saves the IT department loads of local support and configuration. New version? No need to distribute software to 10000 desktops, just upgrade on a couple of servers. Why do you think even Microsoft has introduced "terminal server" after years of denial? Only when citrix got really popular they had to discover that many clients (i.e. large corporations) do want a mixture of desktop and thin clients.

Summary: it is an illusion and unfounded claim that X somehow prevents a migration to desktop unix. It is not because of, but rather in spite of X windows that migration to desktop unix is slow.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[Baki]

X has the extentions protocols/API's for that. For example 3D (openGL) was added later to extend the X protocol with more high level primitives, and there are many more.

The drawback is that such X clients only work if the remote client has the appropriate extentions loaded.

It is well possible to develop QT or GTK X extentions. However for normal uses on a LAN any 2D application is fast enough to make it totally superfluous, and thus it makes to sense to throw away compatability with all X servers. Only for 3D, for video streaming and other special applicaions it makes sense.

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[mark_space2001]

Yes, Motif is ugly. But it is not ugly because of X, but just because it is ugly. X is just a way to draw on a screen (locally or remotely).

The guy who chimed in on the xfree86.org mailing list said Motif looked like it did because it was designed to use the X protocol efficiently. Everyone else on the list seemed to agree that when a "modern style" GUI is used (i.e., one that looks more like Windows), the number of draw primatives just skyrockets, and performance suffers.

It is more than fast enough for any 2D needs one might have nowadays, even through a LAN.

I've used an X server running GUI apps through a lan and performance sucked.

There are more than enough hardware supported (2D) X windows drivers.

Alan Cox on the XFree86.org list said in his experience laggy GUIs were caused by lack of 2D hardware accelleration in the drivers being used. Many 2D accelleration techniques are apparently proprietary. Someone mentioned a couple of drivers (I think for ATI) where the author had reverse engineered the 2D hardware accelleration by hand tracing through the binary Windows drivers.

Needless to say, reverse engineering drivers by reading assembly language is a tedious process that doesn't happen for every card. There are lots of drivers out there. There are not a lot of good hardware accellerated drivers.

How can you claim that X was designed for and ran well on a 8 Mhz 68000 CPU,

Don't bug me, that's what the guy from DEC said on the list. One of their targets for a server was a Macintosh Plus (remember those?), that was a new machine at the time in the lab, circa 1986 or so IIRC. When they got X performance as good as the native Mac GUI, they felt the were doing well.

and does not run well on current machines which are 100 times as fast?

The whole list agreed here that the X desktop under both Gnome (GTK) and KDE (Qt) "feels laggy". I'm still running Windows becuase of this crap, I have no idea what a heavily loaded X server currently runs like.

As for people wanting desktop machines: "people" in fact want windows machines,

People (users, whatever) will notice a difference in performance however. If you go from a fast 2GHz machine that is at your beck and call, to a server that everyone shares, you are going to hit more slowdowns on that server. The server gets loaded with lots of people, usually at crunch time. For us it was running compile jobs. The server slows down just when you need it most, repsonse time decreases, users get frustrated, and upgrading the server is a major expense and hassle.

Adding users with a PC is easy. You buy them a new PC. No other users are impacted. There's a flat per seat charge, you never have to buy extra capacity until you actually need it. Performance never varies for each user. It's predicable and therefore people just like it better.

Yes, IT suffers with PCs, but that appears to be their lot in life. ;)

Re:Before all the flamers get in.

[SiChemist]

I would like to also point out that the human eye can only see 12 frames per second. Motion pictures are shot at 24 frames per second. The picture on your CRT refreshes 60 times per second. Any difference you percieve in frame rates above 24 are in your head, above 60 are REALLY in your head because you aren't seeing them.

While I like the power that X provides and agree (at least in part) with your earlier posts, I have to call you on this one. I can see a difference between a monitor running at 60Hz refresh and one at 85Hz. It is especially apparent when viewing large white areas (like a blank word processing document) and on larger monitors. I can also see the jerkiness that accompanies 24 frame motion pictures as compared to 60 field (30 Frame) television when there is a great deal of motion. I can tell the difference when I see a 50 field (25 frame) tennis match televised via satellite from Europe compared to the NTSC standard. I can tell if a video game is running at 30 frames versus 60 frames, but above 60 I don't notice a difference.

That having been said, I have walked past monitors with a noticable flicker and the person using it doesn't complain. Even when I call attention to it and up the refresh rate, they can't tell the difference between the two. I suspect that sensitivity to refresh rate is highly variable among individuals.

err

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with all the "Hot Babe" backgrounds? Makes all Open Source developers look like horny teenagers. Do you want a horny teenager writing your production Apache server??

Re:err

[tds67]

Do you want a horny teenager writing your production Apache server??

No, just my DeCSS software!

Re:err

[Doug Neal]

Do you want a horny teenager writing your production Apache server??

If he writes good code, sure, why not? Anyway, we're all human, and we're all sexual, in one way or another... what's the big deal?

Re:err

[Pflipp]

Long as the horny teenager is a "Hot Babe", I'd have no problem with that.

Re:err

[Arker]

Do you want a horny teenager writing your production Apache server??

Abso-freakin-lutely. I remember when I was a horny teenager dammit! Lots of energy, sharp mind, just the sort of person you need hacking code.

Plus, if he's off hacking my server, that means I have a window to hit on his hot horny teenager girlfriend. %^}

Re:err

[DingoBueno]

Agreed. From now on, pictures of hot guys.

Kinda brings a whole new meaning to "open" source software...

Re:err

[scotch]

I don't know about your PHB, but my PHB is hornier than a three-peckered billy goat. It's the nature of the leadership type to be keen on sexual conquest. If your PHB isn't an open pervert, I'd start looking for a new job: your company or division is doomed.

Wowsa!

[tds67]

The screenshot looks HOT!!! And oh, yeah, the desktop looks okay, too...I guess...

Don't think so....

[sdriver]

This is unlikly. The avarage X user (hell even the KDE fanactics) won't want to give up all the nice features of an X server. Who wants to use only QT applications? That cuts out most commerical software for linux, and most OSS.

This is most likely to help TrollTech in the embedded space.

Re:Don't think so....

[DreadSpoon]

DirectFB has a multi-application core, and also a specialized X server that runs on it. You can run GNOME on it already, adding Qt/KDE to the mix only _increases_ the number of apps that can be run on it natively.

And so far as the "features" of X... the only feature X has that DirectFB doesn't is network independence, which very few users need, and those who do can use VNC or the DirectFB X server.

Re:Don't think so....

[firewrought]

And so far as the "features" of X... the only feature X has that DirectFB doesn't is network independence, which very few users need, and those who do can use VNC or the DirectFB X server.

If anything, I want to see X11 incorporate more network saavy features... not remove them. It would be nice, for instance, to park X11 sessions and applications, much like screen allows you to multiplex terminals. (There are apps like xmove and others, but none of them are reliable enough yet to withstand X server reboots.) I'd also like to see more RDP-ish functionality (Microsoft's RDP protocal lets you carry sound and printer connections over the network as well). And more flexiblity when working with different screen depths and other resources would be nice too.

Getting back to your point... a frequent piece of design advice is to "optimize the common case". Yes, cutting out network independence does help performance for the common case, but consider: for many, network independence is a must-have feature. It provides all sorts of flexibility with different hardware arrangements and usage models. Thin-client protocals like VNC are nice, but they don't cut it for serious, extended use. And the DirectFB X server isn't going to provide a whole lot of network independence if developers are targeting DirectFB.

The true promise of network independence is only now being realized: it opens up new avenues, even for users who have been content with the "single PC, single desktop" model. It would be a shame to lose the network conveniences provided by X now that we have computers fast enough to host it. :-)

Yes, it would be nice to optimize the common case, but cutting network independence is the wrong way to do it: ideally, the client librarys should be able to choose b/t listening on the network and connecting via shared memory (if X doesn't already have an extension for that [Xshm?]). This choice should be done by the library so that all apps written for X11 are network-capable by default. If the programmer knows they are doing something intensive, then they should be able to do something special to insist on a non-networked app, but this should be the exception and not the rule (and I think X11 has extensions for this too [DRI? xv?]).

Sounds like a plan.

[Meat Blaster]

While I've grown accustomed to X-Windows' ideosynchronities, I've always thought that it would be a good idea to reengineer the whole system from scratch to take advantage of today's hardware and UI concepts. X-Windows 4 has been a vast improvement, but I'm talking about something more like OS X where the whole thing is rewritten to be very smooth and responsive to user input.

If this is a step in that direction, and it sounds like it is, I'm all for a decent alternative that isn't slowed down by having to be a swiss army knife. Especially if it makes resolution switching, 3D graphics, and direct screen drawing less of a hassle.

Re:Sounds like a plan.

[aussersterne]

The X Window System is at version 11, release 6.6.

XFree86 is the one that's at version 4.0. Restrictions on smoothness and responsiveness to user input are due more to driver and kernel performance characteristics than issues with X itself.

Re:Sounds like a plan.

[Snoopy77]

Yeah, I'm currently running X-Windows 4 on my Linux 9.0 box.

Re:Sounds like a plan.

[warrior]

I've always thought that it would be a good idea to reengineer the whole system from scratch to take advantage of today's hardware and UI concepts.

Good idea, I've thought the same thing. I wrote a GUI toolkit for X, and a window manager, so I've got a good idea of how the whole thing works. I quit working on it as I was frustrated that I couldn't do some of the neat things I see in OS-X on X (that sounds funny, doesn't it?). Soooo...

I started from scratch writing an OpenGL based display server. I'm using a lot of ideas from X, but throwing out a lot of cruft and adding lots of enhancements. All of the drawing is double-buffered -- no more Expose events!!!! :) All of the drawing is also hardware accelerated. I've figured out a way to do this very well, without context switching the gfx hardware. One possible method will allow many clients to draw at once and keep a constant framerate (by not context switching/swapping buffers within a certain timeslice, these are very costly operations).

Some of the ideas I am keeping are the idea of "internalizing" graphics buffers to the server where they can be shared among other applications. I'm also keeping the idea of a replacable window-manager like shell.

For fonts I'm using Freetype. Standard image format is png. The display is also hardware-resolution independent and colordepth independent. Right now I'm being setback by the fact that I can't get X working on my new laptop (anyone know a modeline for WUXGA+ 1920x1200@60Hz, for Compaq X1000?). For communication I'm using named pipes/shared mem.

So far, my numbers are better than these.

I'd also like to implement creating server-side macros so a client can pass one command to the server and execute a whole set of drawing routines atomically. Oh, and the source is definately going to be open. Any of this sound like a good/bad idea?

Cheers,
Mike

Re:Sounds like a plan.

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

Restrictions on smoothness and responsiveness to user input are due more to driver and kernel performance characteristics than issues with X itself

This is a myth, and an XFree86 developer, board member, and one of the founders seems to agree:
I've even pissed off Keith and many others on the Core Team by pointing out that X is obsolescent. I've been working in the Windows world for years now, and client-server display systems are utterly irrelvent to the majority of real-world computer users. X needs to be replaced by a direct-rendered model, on which a backwards-compatible X server can be reasonably trivially implemented.

Nobody except people who use X over the network extensively are making claims such as yours. There are many people who do extensive GUI research and programing contradicting what you are saying. the KDE and GNOME projects have both showed interest in direct rendering models. There is a HUGE project of people doing exactly what the above link says. Implementing a direct rendered GUI with an X layer atop for remote display. There is no reason that X should treat everything (including local rendering) as a network socket connection when it can talk to the hardware directly. It is just too much overhead.

People making claims that the UNIX SOCKETS for local display don't involve overhead haven't made their evidence available. if this is true, explain yourself. There is real world proof that the DirectFB model is faster for local rendering, and until XFree86 either gets its own direct rendering model built into it for 2d rendering, and all the bells and whistles that DirectFB has (alpha blending with hardware acceleration, desktop/screen resloution switching on the fly, etc), you people claiming X's faults aren't with the protocol and implementation but with drivers are all blowing hot air.

the unix desktop CAN be faster. But X/XFree86 either needs to grow with the modern desktops, or it needs to be replaced on the desktop with something that works better. Either way, competition is a good thing, and I'm glad that DirectFB is making some headway. Porting QT/Free edition to DirectFB is going to make this competition even better, and the users will win out in the end.

I'm not bashing X here. I'm simply saying that there are better methods to locally render 2D applications. They do exist. They are being developed. The X protocol and XFree86 was designed for UNIX in a client/server networked environment. This is not how most modern computers use on their 2D desktop. I'm not saying XFree86 or the X Protocol needs to go. But if it wants to be _THE_ unix desktop for everyone, it needs to take into account the growing popularity of pure-local rendering environments. (There is no argument from me against it being _THE_ unix desktop in a client/server networked environment)

Re:Sounds like a plan.

[Arker]

People making claims that the UNIX SOCKETS for local display don't involve overhead haven't made their evidence available.

I don't think anyone has claimed that at all.

Of course there is overhead involved in that abstraction, but there is overhead plenty of places. With modern hardware it's trivial. You can run X on a 486 just fine, and if the overhead isn't too much there then why would you worry about it on a newer 'puter?

Lots of people complain about X in ignorance, because what they're complaining about, when you look at it, isn't X at all. It's bloated crap they insist on running on X. It's libraries compiled with silly options. It's Xfree86, in some cases, which is simply one implementation of X, and has some weak spots. People, innocently, then generalise that because one poorly configured or designed system that happens to use X runs poorly for them, that something must be wrong with X itself, but that does not follow.

If you throw that same bloated software on a FB, it's going to be just as slow and bloated. If you compile your libraries with debug symbols on and use them on FB, it's going to be just as much a ridiculous memory hog as it was on X. If you don't use (or don't have) a good accellerated driver for your video card, changing from X to a FB isn't going to fix the problem.

FB makes sense for embedded applications where you really don't have room for X. But on a regular workstation, you have more than adequate resources to run it and run it well. If it's not running well, the problem is not X itself, and changing from X to a less sophisticated, capable, and mature system isn't going to address the real problem, except possibly by sheer accident.

Re:Sounds like a plan.

[IamTheRealMike]

This is a myth, and an XFree86 developer, board member, and one of the founders seems to agree:

As has already been pointed out to you, said XFree86 developer has been out of touch for so long that he thought Red Hat hadn't contributed to X, and now works on Windows entirely doing AOL stuff. When he took part in the XFree-forum list, he got flamed, badly.

Nobody except people who use X over the network extensively are making claims such as yours.

Don't be so short sighted. Maybe the reason nobody uses network transparency on Windows is because it blows so many goats? Have you thought of that? Yet, Microsoft have still taken architectural backflips to make it work, see W2K Terminal Services etc. It's a lame, poor imitation of actual network transparency, but they sell it anyway.

Simply having worked in tech support, I can think of MANY times when being able to have an xterm launched to me, would have been a godsend, especially as said person could continue working while I also worked.

There is a HUGE project of people doing exactly what the above link says. Implementing a direct rendered GUI with an X layer atop for remote display

Which desktop uses that then? Cos AFAIK both MacOS X and Windows use a model similar to that of X internally. None of them are direct rendered.

People making claims that the UNIX SOCKETS for local display don't involve overhead haven't made their evidence available. if this is true, explain yourself.

Why don't you find out for yourself, instead of ranting on Slashdot? You know, there are indeed studies, performed under controlled conditions, that show the overhead of UNIX domain sockets is negligable. They even tried replacing them entirely with SHM segments at one point, but it made no difference. Domain sockets are one of the most heavily optimized IPC primitives in the kernel, and you are quite free to perform speed tests yourself. The only area that it makes any difference is when throwing large amounts of data through them, such as pixmaps (which is why we use the XSHM pixmap extension), and the memcpy may not be completed in the available timeslice. For small messages, ie the bulk of X traffic, there is no speed gain to be had.

There is real world proof that the DirectFB model is faster for local rendering

Er, that's so wrong. For most people, ie anybody without a Matrox G series card, it's far far slower.

until XFree86 either gets its own direct rendering model built into it for 2d rendering

.... which it has....

and all the bells and whistles that DirectFB has (alpha blending with hardware acceleration, desktop/screen resloution switching on the fly, etc)

..... which it also has .... oh, unless you mean the ability to pointlessly make entire windows semi-transparent so you can't read what's on them, an ability that's useful primarily for screenshots with hot babes in the background

you people claiming X's faults aren't with the protocol and implementation but with drivers are all blowing hot air.

There are faults in every area of XFree/X11, nothing is perfect. The protocol needs some changes, which are being worked on, the driver interface needs to be broken to support proper save unders, and the scheduler is a dog. Needless to say however, DirectFB isn't a perfect work of art either. It's certainly useful, but right now it's not even competitive in terms of speed or features for 90% of users.

I'm not bashing X here

LMFAO. Yes you are. You've made many, many assertions, that you would know were wrong if you had actually sat down for a couple of weekends and done some basic research into the matter, like I have done. I have read boring reports, mailing lists archives, and chatted to various people involved, and so I'm pretty sure the impressions I have are accurate. There is nothing wrong with X as a local rendering mode

Background

[quasi_steller]

Boy, with that girl in the background, I about forgot to look at the transparency effects!

On a more serious note: this is good. Not that I want X replaced or anything, but a little copetition is always good. (Besides, why can't there be X-Free distro's and DirectFB distro's?)

Re:Background

[tnak]

That pic is the second most popular download from the site www.dwp.ch.vu

I'm betting that means I'm not the only person who saw the first screenshot and said, "to hell with the graphics, where'd he find the girl?"

Re:Background

[vrmlguy]

Hmmm, 50 galleries, 6 pics per gallery, that means I'm a quick script away from having a different desktop everyday for almost a year.

In somewhat related news

[Anonymous Coward]

Eugina has released some screenshots of the New Redhat Severn desktop.

Don't be betting on it either way...

[Svartalf]

1) DirectFB supports GTK+ as well- I suspect Fltk's on the way as well.

2) You CAN have X apps under DirectFB with XDirectFB.

3) They're posting rather impressive framerates under Quake III:Arena with the DirectFBGL layer code.

4) Qt's ALREADY in the embedded space- QtEmbedded is what they're using on the Zaurus.

directfb

[Pflipp]

Maybe it's just the nature of the post, but I looked at the DirectFB screenshots (on DirectFB.org), and I see everything from GNOME 2 to WindowMaker to the GIMP, translucency, etc., etc., while I've never heard of DirectFB before.

Great. Now let's see how I get this on my Debian... hmm... I guess it would take a whole other Debian "port".

Hey; it would be cool to combine Linux + DirectFB + GNUstep (+ "3rd party" Free SW) into a MacOSX wannabe distro. It's not a problem if that would still mean it's lacking more than half of the basic OSX functionality; it's the other, Free half that makes the thought interesting!

Mirror

[keesh]

Site is kinda slow... one, two, three, karma please?

DirectFB Inherently Insecure?

[istartedi]

Not being familiar with it, the first thing I did was read the FAQ:

Q: Whenever I try to start a DirectFB application, I get the error message

Error opening /dev/tty0
A: You have to be root to run DirectFB apps. The main reason is that only root is allowed to change virtual terminals.

So. In order to get the supposed benefits of DFB, you have to run apps as root? I guess maybe you could log on as a user and su the DFB apps, but that's a pain. Why should a graphics lib muck up security? That seems inherently broken to me. If it really just abstracts graphics then there should be no problem with user apps running it.

This isn't really my area of expertise. Perhaps there's something I'm missing. Can anybody clue me in?

Re:DirectFB Inherently Insecure?

[stab]

In OpenBSD, Matthieu Herrb patched XFree86 to use privilege separation so that the main X process can drop root privileges and run as a normal _x11 user. The privileged portion just grants it the ability to open devices it needs and send certain signals.

There's no reason why these guys couldn't do the same if they care about security ... it's not hard, just requires the OS to support descriptor passing.

Re:DirectFB Inherently Insecure?

[RelentlessWeevilHowl]

Your X server also needs root access, and for much the same reasons. X needs to muck with the registers on your video card, for example. Nowadays, there's a little setuid program called "XWrapper" that gets access to everything it needs, then drops its privileges and loads the main X server on top of itself.

There is at least one project (KGI) that attempts to rationalize all this. It puts the privileged functionality in kernel space, then exposes it all in a safe manner. Linus has not been receptive to this design in the past, preferring the X mechanism.

Re:DirectFB Inherently Insecure?

[nologin]

Well, unless you want to make a major hack to the kernel itself, the only way you are going to access the Linux framebuffer is to do so as root. Just look at how X works... It has to run as root so it can spawn a basic graphical display for you to use.

I suspect (since I have not tried it myself) that the problem with the DFB apps is that they don't come with the rendering abstraction layer that X provides (think client-server model). So every application needs to be root to write directly to the framebuffer. Sure, it will increase the rendering speed, but it sacrifices security while doing that.

The best solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Plan 9's. The graphics, mouse and keyboard devices are standard devices that can be mounted from a remote filesystem; the advantage being the windowing system does not need to handle the network layer. And since each process has its own filesystem namespace, you have a bunch of different consoles and each program accesses its one at /dev/cons.

The entire system, including the default program that runs in the window the equivalent of xterm [Far89] with `cutting and pasting' between windows is well under 90 kilobytes of text on a Motorola 68020 processor, about half the size of the operating system kernel that supports it and a tenth the size of the X server [Sche86] without xterm.

The components of Plan 9 are connected by a common protocol based on the sharing of files. All resources in the network are implemented as file servers; programs that wish to access them connect to them over the network and communicate using ordinary file operations. An unusual aspect of Plan 9 is that the name space of a process, the set of files that can be accessed by name (for example by an open system call) is not global to all processes on a machine; distinct processes may have distinct name spaces. The system provides methods by which processes may change their name spaces, such as the ability to mount a service upon an existing directory, making the files of the service visible in the directory. (This is a different operation from its UNIX namesake.) Multiple services may be mounted upon the same directory, allowing the files from multiple services to be accessed in the same directory. Options to the mount system call control the order of searching for files in such a union directory.

8½ serves a set of files in the conventional directory /dev with names like cons, mouse, and screen. Clients of 8½ communicate with the window system by reading and writing these files. For example, a client program, such as a shell, can print text by writing its standard output, which is automatically connected to /dev/cons, or it may open and write that file explicitly. Unlike files served by a traditional file server, however, the instance of /dev/cons served in each window by 8½ is a distinct file; the per-process name spaces of Plan 9 allow 8½ to provide a unique /dev/cons to each client. This mechanism is best illustrated by the creation of a new 8½ client.

From here

Windows or holes in the walls?

[Yaa 101]

This reminds me of a long going project that was once called Berlin and is renamed Fresco along the way...
Though their ambitions were higher with making a new windowing system...

They still exsist at:

http://www2.fresco.org/

Re:Windows or holes in the walls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think what you will, but please listen. The reason the Fresco project is moving so slowly is because we are seriously under-manned and we are always looking for volunteers. I see a time where Fresco will be something great, much more than X could ever be. But this is only if we all chip in and help out.

-Stefan Seefeld
Fresco architect and lead developer

Re:nice

[codepunk]

Well did you ever consider that some of us run over 150 desktop clients off of one server using nothing but X to get the job done. X might not be the fastest rendering display in the world but it is the most powerful.

Terminate the Terminal

[fm6]

Well, there is the odd moment when it's a nuisance to not be able to run a remote X application. Like when you want to log into another system and run GVIM. But yeah, you're right, it's not worth keeping X around just for those rare circumstances, all of which have another solution.

It's worth remembering why X is a network-based system in the first place. The X server software we use now was originally meant to run only on a dedicated terminal. Some of these were actually manufactured (I think there might even be some still in production) but X Terminals were never cheap enough to compete with single-user computers for most applications. I suspect that the X architects just took it as a given that most computing would always be done on time-sharing systems. Hey, don't snear at them. That was about the time that Intel almost went under...

Re:Terminate the Terminal

[Alien Being]

"Well, there is the odd moment when it's a nuisance to not be able to run a remote X application."
For you maybe. I've worked in some very heterogenous environments where X was indispensible. I'd like to see more use of X. For example, I think it would be great if I could redirect the Tivo GUI to my desktop.

"It's worth remembering why X is a network-based system in the first place. The X server software we use now was originally meant to run only on a dedicated terminal."
X is a network based system because it is an advancement over the hardwired graphics systems that preceded it.

"I suspect that the X architects just took it as a given that most computing would always be done on time-sharing systems."
Whaddya call the whole Internet?

I don't see any need to dump X except for when space is at an absolute premium. We had enough to run it 15 years ago; we have more than enough now. The performance complaints only apply to a few apps, and they are handled to my satisfaction by DRI.

Thin client is well suited to remote display over a decent Net connection, but X rules the LAN.

Re:Terminate the Terminal

[mwa]

Like when you want to log into another system and run GVIM.

Slightly OT, but in GVIM

• :e scp://remotehost//path/to/file

Same with http, ftp, rcp. Try :help scp

Great when you don't want to maintail gvim for Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, ....

Re:nice

[DaBj]

Yes, and for running desktop clients off of one server X is excellent.
Running it as a local desktop it is, however, not that excellent.

So basicly, the same people who whine that Windows sucks, especially all the legacy code from the Windii of old are now whining when the *nix legacy code that is X is beeing replaced?
Did I miss something? I think it's a great idea.

Re:But ... it's got ...

[SuperDuG]

FYI ... here's the background ... http://www.dwp.ch.vu/wallpapers/anna_falchi_01.jpg

Re:Good.

[macemoneta]

Absolutely true -- I'm running X on a 25MHz 486SX with 8MB of RAM, and X is very responsive.

DirectFB's not planning on replacing X...

[Svartalf]

X is available as a feature on DirectFB- it's called XDirectFB.

GDK vs. GTK

[roystgnr]

I think GDK is a replacement for XLib (draw line here; draw pixmap there), and GTK is all the higher level stuff (draw button here and hook it to this function; draw and operate spinbox there).

Re:GDK vs. GTK

[ambrosius27]

Not exactly. GDK is an *abstraction* layer with multiple backends, the X11 one being the most prominent. To quote from the GTK/GNOME developers' website: "Instead of directly building on top of the X Window System, GTK+ introduces an intermediate layer, GDK, which isolates GTK+ from the details of the windowing system. This simplifies things for the programmer and increases portability." See the webpage. Through GDK backends, GTK has been ported to MSWindows as well as DirectFB(see also here).

I hope that helps.

You can't save it till you need it

[sig]

The idea of saving the network abstraction layer of X "till you NEED it" is flawed. If we design all of our applications without it, then when the occasion comes up (for some it may be rare, but I use it every day) it will be too much trouble to retrofit those applications to have X support. But if you assume X all the time, then you can gaurantee it'll be there when you need it.

If you are worried about interface responsiveness, there are plenty of things that are being done to address that without giving up the X paradigm, such as the X DRI extensions, and X server hardware support (its difficult enough to get NVIDIA and ATI's support for X, do you think they'll want to bother with 2 totally different unix graphic drivers?), and my personal favorite, the preemptable kernel (woohoo, Linux 2.6! (3.0?)).

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I'm sure we're all busy folks, let me save everyone some time by summarizing what this whole discussion is going to boil down to:

• Performance is god.
• No it isn't.
• Yes, it is.
• Is not.
• Is too.
• Is not, take a comp. sci. class -- abstraction is a good thing.
• Don't you realize this means higher framerates on 3|_33T Derivative FPS 2004 Pro? That's my favorite game, it just came out and it's so awesome. Besides, if we have the fastest games, that'll show that Linux performance is awesome and thus that Linux is truly enterprise-ready.
• Oh yeah?!? Well, I'm an old-time Unix guy, and I say, "Give me vi, X11, and ksh, or give me death!"
• 1. Hey, you stole my chance to get first post, you insensitive clod. 2. ???? 3. Profit!

This is not the time.

[unoengborg]

The screenshots are great, the technology is cool, but the one thing that prevents the free desktop to come true on the machine of Average Joe is the lack of applications.

Changeing the direction of the graphics environment right now isn't productive. It will delay the common use of Linux/FreeBSD on the desktop. As applications will need to be ported to the new system, instead of using that developer effort to produce new and better applications.
Perhaps even that killer app that makes the difference.

One other thing, one of the the most attractive features in the X11 desktop to corporate user is the remote display facilities. This is a major advantage over windows. It makes system administration a lot cheaper as application can be installed in one place. The admin cost is much more important to this group than the cost of hardware. Even if they needed twice as fast/memoryrich hardware to get the same performance on X11 they would prefer X11.

Once free software have higher market penetration on the Desktop we can change to better technology. But first we need to kill the competition from MS and Apple. X11 is good enough to do that, especially since the average desktop PC gets more and more memory and processing power.

The technology could still prove interesting for emedded devices where memory and processing power constraints still are more common.

For all those whining about XFree86....

[DaCool42]

1) As many have said over and over, XFree86 is not slow. It runs great on a 486. Try using a faster WM.

2) Transparancy/hardware rendering. For some reason people think XFree86 needs to be tossed out completely in order to get this. Check out this interview statement from David Dawes (XFree86 developer):

David Dawes: There has been some work on a new rendering model for XFree86 that provides some more advance composition techniques (including transparency), this currently being implemented in software. For XFree86 5.0 we'll be investigating this as part of our review of rendering models, and seeing if a hardware implementation would not be more appropriate.

Re:Good.

[Arandir]

Since you haven't said exactly what is bloated and buggy with XFree86, nor stated why Windows 95 is a better GUI than any other X GUI, I'll assume you're just talking out your arse.

But rather than just flame, I'll present you with some reasons why you *perceive* Windows to be better.

A) Everyone tells you it's faster. Don't laugh this one off! The average human being rivals the cow when it comes to peer pressure. I've done some tests on my dual boot Win2k/FreeBSD machine. FreeBSD with KDE can do from powerup to surfing slashdot with Konqueror in 45 seconds, while powering up under Win2k to surfing Slashdot under Internet Exploder takes 60 seconds.

B) At work we're taking a i486 embedded device running X11R5 (R5 mind you!) and redesigning it from scratch to run WinXP Embedded on a 1Ghz P4. The new system *HAS* to use DirectX, because win32 is too damn slow. It does not have the performance that the i486/X11R5 has. They can't draw realtime *labels* and *graphs* faster than 15fps without it.

C) But that's speed. There can be a noticable response difference between the two, especially if your distro was asleep at the wheel when it came to default X settings. Why is Win95 more responsive than KDE or GNOME? Because the Win95 GUI DOESN'T DO ANYTHING! Even vanilla Blackbox has a higher feature set then it does! The win95 desktop can't even handle a jpg background without resorting to an ActiveDesktop hack, but most X window managers can use any image format you throw it at, and will scale the image without aliasing to boot.

D) A Qt application is no slower or less responsive under XFree86 than the same Qt application recompiled for win32. Try it and see! In fact, the only GTK+ application I use under Windows is *slower* than its XFree86 counterpart (GIMP).

E) If you see a significant performance increase under Win95/2k/XP, it's because it's an ActiveX application. It's bypassing the GUI completely. Please reread the previous sentence and attempt to comprehend it. See my note under B. We had to use ActiveX in our project because the WinXP GUI is too slow. Linux/BSD needs an ActiveX analogue, true, but that's no reason to dump X completely. Sometimes when you're playing Quake and feeling l33t because you're using Linus instead of Windows, then you want a good direct rendering engine. But it's completely pointless when you're running Scribus or GIMP. Perhaps DirectFB can fill this role for the times it's needed.

For shame!

[UnknowingFool]

How dare he exploit that young woman like that?! Does he really think that putting a picture of a young, attractive, nubile woman in a suggestive pose is going to attract the attention of a bunch of nerds?

. . .

Never mind.

Re:DirectFB and non-english letters

[Arandir]

Since everyone wants to get rid of the X11 remote networking because "95% of people don't use it", then the obvious answer to your question is "if 95% of the people can get by with US-English keyboards, then the rest of you can go suck wind".
</sarcasm>

X is not slow, some WM's for linux are.

[miffo.swe]

X in itself is very fast and pretty slick. Try yourself by kicking gnome/kde and trying OpenBox or some other fast WM. The difference on slower machines is pretty big.

I have a feeling that some n00bs confuse X with their Window Manager and Docks and Panels etc.

Re:I can't believe people mod this up

[Arker]

I don't care how motivated or energetic you were as a teen -- you just didn't have the experience to write really good code. If you can't see the difference, you still haven't got it.

That's almost complete nonsense, but not quite. It's true, people that age usually aren't capable of doing an entire project well. They need someone with more experience to see the whole picture and sort the wheat from the chaff, to serve as something like an Editor - like Linus does for instance. But young people are perfectly capable of writing damn good code, and if you can't see that then it's you that doesn't have it - it being objectivity.

Transparent Windows

[Tony.Tang]

I never really understood why people thought transparent windows were so cool.

Now I understand why it should be a priority 1 feature in all applications.

The *Real* Problem with X11 and the unix desktop

[TheNarrator]

Ok guys. I really have to tell you, I have been using Unix on the desktop 8 hours a day everyday for about the last 3 years and though things have gotten better there is one issue I have with X and the whole Linux desktop that everybody ignores but fundamentally makes it inferior to Mac and Windows. Not that it's not good enough to be quite usefull but this is just a glaringly huge hole in the UI that doesn't get enough press.

The problem is The Clipboard (Drag And Drop, Cut and Paste Etc). It only does text! I can't cut and paste from Gimp to Open Office or Mozilla to Open Office. Here we have the two most important linux desktop application and dragging a gif from mozilla to open office doesn't work. It's just text!

I know this would be tough to implement with X Remote desktop since two applications being displayed on your X Server might be on different machines but can't we set up a drag and drop daemon on each machine that lets them talk to each other so open office on machine a could except some paste information from the machine that was running Mozilla via a xclient to xclient connection or from a low level cut and paste service that communicated from server to server? Anyway.. I hope somebody in KDE or Gnome land is listening here.

Re:The *Real* Problem with X11 and the unix deskto

[John Meacham]

um. actually X selections are more powerful than other systems at allowing cut-n-paste and drag-n-drop of non-text. X selections let the pastee and paster negotiate on a prefered file format based on what they have to offer and what they can accept.

Just because people who write apps for X don't seem to use this functionality, don't blame X11. if the app writers are too lazy to use the power of X selections, I don't see why they would suddenly for some new system.

Re:FB Goodness?

[Pippity]

Well what do you think? The guy doesn't want to miss one nanosecond of the wallpaper babe!

The design of X is multi-user

[PotatoHead]

just like the UNIX underneath.

Personally, I consider the true multi-user nature of UNIX systems to be their greatest strength.

Getting rid of X means giving that up. It also means making our OS just like the other multi-tasking, but not mulit-user ones out there.

It is just not worth it.

I use X every day. For gaming, remote support, and various other things. The current XFree works better than any other X server I have used.

Look at OS X. It has a frame buffer. It also can have a rootless X server. All the apps for the machine target the frame buffer. None of them work well over the network.

Sure you have VNC, but that just moves the ONE desktop around.

In an X environment, you get to move anything anywhere you want to. This is where the strength of UNIX is.

Multi-user computing is valuable. It makes older hardware continue to be useful. It also allows for different computing models and resource usage.

The other Operating systems do not do this. Linux / UNIX does and it is our killer feature.

What happens when a win32 server has trouble? You get a few admins looking at the machine while one operates it. With UNIX, you get a few admins all poking at the machine at the same time working together to work through the problem!

X is not slow. DRI has fixed the 3D part of things. 2D has always been fast. The transparent windows are nice, but do we really need them more than we need to continue to build on the software base we have now?

Look at Open Office. It runs nicely over X. One machine can serve many others. Install one copy of the software, setup the environment for the end-users once and you are done! No local installs, no hassle. Upgrade once and everybody is done.

If we do a frame buffer, it needs to be truely multi-user or it is not work doing. VNC is not the same as remote application display.

For those who say most people do not use the features of X, I say you are right. Why? It's because they don't know better, not because the tech sucks.

I have several machines that all perform their various functions. Some are Linux, some are IRIX and one other one is win2k. On my Linux desktop, the IRIX and Linux are perfectly intergrated. All the machines act as one. The odd man out is win2k. I have to bring up a silly VNC window for it.

Things are getting faster in a hurry folks. X is there already. The toolkits and window managers and desktop stuff is progressing nicely.

Choice is a big part of what OSS is all about. X provides more choice and power than any other display system ever has. That is why it is still around. That is also why it should stay.

Anyone who really wants to replace X does not understand just what it does. They just want the simple system their old OS had without realizing it is part of the problem.

I don't like it

[aonifer]

Anna Flalabalalooy isn't really my type. I won't run this until it has Alyson Hannigan on the desktop.

Why DirectFB instead of X?

[SailorBob]

For anyone who doesn't understand why you would use anything other than X, take a look at ByzantineOS, which uses DirectFB for rendering in low powered Internet and home entertainment appliances.