Slashdot Mirror
X.org and XFree86 Reform
albepetr writes "NewsForge is reporting about a press conference held today at LinuxWorld 2004 in New York, where some members of the X Consortium, XFree86, and freedesktop.org announced that X.org and XFree86 have merged. They claim that the reformed group will be working together to bring "not just more eye candy but new functionality" to the X Window Manager for Linux and Unix." Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN. Update: 01/23 18:06 GMT by M : XFree86.org denies the story. I think a more accurate description of the event might be something like, "XFree86 core developers leave XFree86, join X.org, remaining people of XFree86 are peeved".
give credit to -- individual contributors rather than continue to view X development primarily as a corporate activity.
I like this alot. Functionality to the desktop is something that Unix and Linux both need to see loads of improvement on to help spread it to a larger market. I also like to see the OpenSource community coming together and joining into larger projects that can do more, rather than see hundreds of smaller projects all going in the same direction seperately. Bringing lots of brain power together gets stuff done.
It's nice. Now we need the big desktop systems to agree on common ground, make a "base" system that they can develop each their own systems on ;)
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
I hope this means we're gotting one GOOD X server, instead of one that has the drivers but not the features, and one that has the features but not the drivers.
I still believe the Right Thing is to have an efficient system for local display, and a widget-based protocol (a la PicoGUI) for remote display, though.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It's called "X Window System" and not "X Window Manager".
It is so mostly because it is not a window manager.
Real life is overrated.
Ok, how many slashdot stories do we need where half the people support X and half the people want something new, or a re-write. This is what it comes down to. X has a lot of great features. X forwarding over ssh being the premier reason I use X. It's probably a feature I couldn't live without. But if linux wants to transition to being a desktop OS for everybody X wont cut it. It's just too big, slow, and full of features desktop users don't need. Directfb is more like what desktop users need, but not quite. That's all there is to it. Linux is about choice, and right now X is the only truly reliable choice for any sort of gui stuffs. We need a real alternative to X for those who don't need the features.
However, as a user of X, I think it's great these sites are joining forces. OSS is about collaboration, and the more they work together the better the end result will be. And if everyone works together they will follow the same standards like the ones from freedesktop.org programs will be much nicer. gaim easily going into the system tray which I put in my xfce4 taskbar is an example of freedesktop.org standards at work. If everyone followed them, imagine what we could do.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
The issue is that the philosophy of X (at least from what I see), is that is plays the role of a graphic server. Nothing more. "If you want copy and paste, write a deamon to manage it" type philosophy.
This is the one case where I say I like the Windows way better then the Unix way.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
From the article
"...the reformed group is working together to bring "not just more eye candy but new functionality" to the X Window Manager for Linux and Unix."
Umm, they mean X Server don't they, or is there suppossed to be some sort of official window manager now? That would be very bad news in my opinion - Linux benefits greatly from the diversity of GUIs that exist for it.
I think the parent wanted to point out that the window-managers are not part of the X-server.
The window-managers are apps running on the X-server.
Although. I cannot read anybodys minds =)
Now would be the time to strike on a new name change for the system. Since we have two X groups joining and it a new X orginization. I suggest they rename it to "XXX Windows System". I would bet they would see there number of downloads skyrocket.
Papa Legba come and open the gate
One thing that always annoys me with programming for linux and unix is that include files are always in a different spot. I've spent days hunting for something(yes I know about whereis and assorted utils) only to find out it's name had an x infront of it, whereas on the other system it didn't or it was in another directory. Something stupid like /etc/bin/include/graphics/opengl.
Or one system uses opengl and the other mesa for example, and then your completely lost. The arguement that if you new the systems you were coding for better you would be fine, is ignorant as most people use standard libraries like opengl, sockets.h etc, because they aren't supposed to need to know much about the other os for it to work. Anyways, if the X guys standardize things like the directory structure, and procedure interfaces(although I think there are standards for these) it will make things much easier for us linux at home, unix at work guys.
This has nothing to do with X and has everything to do with a long standing bug in Mozilla, which fails to use the X clipboard correctly. Mozilla on X has always been secondary to Mozilla on Windows/GDI, and unfortunately it shows here badly.
Here is the buglink: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56219, you'll need to copy/paste to stop bugzilla being Slashdotted (don't bother if you aren't interested or able to understand the technical details).
Basically Mozilla does not properly support the ICCCM protocols and as is often the way with Mozilla the bug has been blocking on one or two overworked people for a very long time.
An object lesson in why inventing your own toolkit is a silly idea, IMHO....
...hands down.
The problem is (or probably: was) not with X, but with Gnome and/or KDE
Indeed.
X has the most elegant cut-and-paste scheme I've ever seen, certainly vastly superior to Mac OS X and Windows.
Select with the left button pressed, and click with the middle button in the target window to paste. No Apple-C or control-V crap, no need to press any key of any kind. Click-select, click, and you're done.
Once you get used to it, you won't be able to stand the way Mac OS X and Windows handle cut-and-paste.
Gnome and KDE made the extremely boneheaded decision to mimic Windows even when it really doesn't make sense; when the X way of doing things is vastly better. Click to focus as a default? Ugh! Windows-style cut-and-paste? An affront to humankind.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So, how do the new developments at freedesktop.org like XCB/XCL fit into this new picture? I'm hoping the exciting new code can be eventually rolled in more easily now?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
There are lots of "X sucks" flamethrowing morons around who have been told a million times that (for example) network transparency doesn't have overhead when both client and server are on the local machine.
But the parent's complaint, IMHO, shows one of the genuine weak points of the "mechanism, not policy" philosophy of X.
The gist is this: the X designers were faced with the choice of whether selecting text would copy it to a buffer or would merely mark it as selected. All window systems which were designed with a human user in mind would have found it a no-brainer -- copy the text to an internal buffer, since that's what the user intuitively expects.
Not X.
X merely marks the text as selected. That's because it avoids unnecessary network transfer in case the application is running remotely. The second reason is that it enables "content-type negotiation", between the copying and pasting programs. One of the consequences is that if you select text and close that program then that data is gone! This is unexpected data loss, as bad (to Joe Enduser) as your os randomly deleting files on disk.
Note: I'm not saying X made the wrong choice, just that the choices it made aren't very suitable for normal desktop use.
The second consequence of this is that programs (in practice, widget toolkits) that implement copy-paste must all need to agree on a common protocol/format etc. to make things work. And of course, we all know how good open source developers are at doing that. (Its not their fault, just a consequence of the fact that its made of various indepedent projects and not one company).
So that's why nothing can happen right in the desktop linux world without freedesktop.org. Its the standards effort that sits on top of all these disparate pieces and tries to bring some sanity to the whole situation. And I would say it has been going extremely well. Keep it up guys!
Everyone say a little thanks to Keith Packard, please.
XFree86 should be for x86 versions of X, or X thats generally run on x86-based OSes shouldnt it? Ideally it should be named XFree which will mean a certain implementation of X, yet architecture-free. XFree86 is already used on almost as many architectures as NetBSD supports.
And if x.org is uniting with XFree86, maybe we can keep it simple and just call it X. I know there are other implementations of X, but since x.org owns the copyright, might as well keep the name simple.
At the least, I would lose the '86'.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
The answer to his question is here
1.11) What is Keith Packards involvement with Xouvert?
Keith Packard is a champion of the move to open XFree86, and supports Xouvert's efforts in that regard. Keith's project is freedesktop.org, and he's expressed interest in bundling with Xouvert's results.
So Keith is right there in the middle of it all.
And according to the Xouvert FAQ, it is not a fork, but more of a public development branch.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
I just hope that with this new, more optimitic outlook, more developers will come on board and contribute new and refreshing ideas to the development of X.
The unfortunate thing with X is that it is so important to *NIX and yet it receives less attention than the kernel. Sure, X11 isn't sexy but it a very important component none the less.
What I hope by the end of this year is a strong cohesive X server development team/community with good links to IHVs and an active programme in place to encourage people with new and exciting ideas to come forward and discuss them.
What I would also like to see is a situation where the X specification becomes more than just what we see today. We need an encompassing standard which not only includes what we have today but flexible enough to adapt to new extensions as they arise.
Along with these extensions, the toolkit communities need to work closer together with X and each other and work towards an X11/Consortium backed HIG of which all toolkits conform to. What I am trying to get at is this, different tool kits are great, each community can concerntrate on developing the strengths of that particular toolkit, however, for this choice on one hand and the adoption of Linux on the other hand to continue, there needs to be a standard set down. Once that standard is set down and the the two, X + toolkits, work closer together and allow better interoperability, the net result should be applications which look consistant no matter what toolkit is used.
That's not right (at least in terms of cut and paste). The X server handles it. Select with the left mouse button, paste with the middle. No messing with the keyboard. Works the same with every app.
The modular approach of X is one of its great strengths, not weaknesses. The same specification (X11R6) has scaled well enough that it hasn't needed reworking in over a decade. The Windows GDI seems to change whenever the wind blows.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
"If you want copy and paste, write a deamon to manage it"
I've been wondering for a long time why this hasn't happened already. How on earth can it be hard to come up with a daemon that can recieve, store and reguritate small blobs of text or binary data?!?
Best of all, it wouldn't depend on which gui you were using. It could work with all of them. It wouldn't depend on any gui being present all.
With a standard clipboard service/daemon, you could do stuff like cut in mozilla or a KDE app, and paste in commandline vi/emacs or reboot and paste into a gnome app.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I am *so* tired of being say that X is slow. I use X everyday, at work and at home, and never, ever has it been slow. There are some *applications* that are slow, most notable among them OpenOffice running on a Pentium 400Mhz machine, but on my 1Ghz+ machines it's quite nice.
The X Server has never been slow for me, and I really wonder where the myth that running X is slow. I have plenty of apps that run rather speedily on my X boxes that take longer on faster Win32 based machines. (Firebird comes to mind.) And just for the fun of it, I use a PyQT text editor that I wrote to teach myself PyQT -- it's interpreted, gui-based text editor -- and it launches and displayed in under a second on this Pentium 400Mhz machine.
No, X is not slow. The apps are.
It is absolutely clear why the XFree86 team-members joined the X-Consortium:
They wanted this cool x.org mail-adress
Except that, as the original poster noted, it does _not_ work between any two apps. I know this is the zillionth time this exchange has taken place here, but just because you don't use a combination of apps for which it doesn't work doesn't mean that those of us who need to paste from, say, Kate to rxvt are making up stories.
And, of course, copy/paste isn't a clipboard, copying anything but ASCII text almost never works, ...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"the market has chosen it" is and always will be a bullshit statement.
X has both, and it has always had both. They're not "incompatible". Middle click inserts the primary selection, while application can access the clipboard buffer provided by X, for years and years long before KDE and GNOME with things like meny options or keyboard shortcuts. The GUIs use C-c, C-x and C-v just like Windows. (In which language does paste begin with v?)
That you can choose to use the clipboard buffer does not mean that we lazy geeks should be hindered from using the middle-click method. Neither is in the way of the other and they never were (except that for a while one of the DEs had a wrong implementation that used the primary selection buffer for C-c/C-x. This was dealt with accordingly - as a bug).
JWZ explains it nicely.
Not really.
I seriously doubt that X.org, the new face of the former X Consortium (members like HP, IBM, Sun, XFree86), has merged with XFree86. They have two totally different goals. The goal of X.org is to promote a single X (currently 11R6) standard between different vendors and implementors. XFree86 was and is a member of X Consortium/X.org, and is a specific (Open Source) implementation of the X standard.
The rest of it is too confused for me to make any real sense out of. I suspect that there is some good vibes between members of X.org, freedesktop.org, and hopefully XFree86 - which is a good thing. Key developers of XFree86 (e.g. David Dawes and Egbert Eich) and X.org (Alan Coopersmith) now seem eager to move forward and work together on making better software. Getting people all on the same page and working together is a lot of work, because of different interests and goals, but I think that XFree86 will see 2004 as a busy year with lots of improvements.
I really hope that freedesktop does not widely diverge from XFree86, let it be a test bed sure, but not a competing product.
Cut-n-paste works under X, but I hate that Move-n-replace is ugly.
Windows:
1) Highlight new text
2) Ctl-x
3) Highlight text-to-be-replaced
4) Ctl-v
X:
1) Highlight text-to-be-replaced
2) Delete text-to-be-replaced
3) Highlight new text
4) Delete new text
5) Paste new text
I'd like to see X do something like this:
1) Highlight new text with left button
2) Keep holding left button and press right button to cut to clipboard
3) Highlight text-to-be-replaced with left button
4) Keep holding left button and press middle button to copy from clipboard
This wouldn't work for Left+Right=Middle, but Ctl-x|c|v would work for those people.
What do you think? I find move-n-replace to be very handy for text editing.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Repeat: removing the networking code would not make X any faster.
So, given that including the gee-whiz features that a lot of us require in our daily usage has absolutely penalty for "average joe's grandma", why would you want to remove it? That's like saying that the average user won't use sed, so RedHat should remove it to make Linux faster.
[1] Webster: "uninstructed or uninformed". I don't know of a "nice" substitute, that is, one without the negative connotations. Don't infer malice. :-)
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It's a hard problem to solve because it requires content negotation. If I select and copy a graphic in a web browser and try to paste it into a pure text editor, what should it do? Nothing? Should it paste the ALT text? How about the longer description text if there is any? Should it paste the URL of the image? Should it attempt to use OCR on the image to convert it to textual data?
:)
I can think of lots of content negotation problems with text, too, especially styled text. What if part of the style is unsupported? What if the style is the result of a named style using a name that both applications support but the visual rendering of that style is very different-- should it attempt to mimic the rendering or should it use the style as named? (Quick example would be copying some text from one HTML document to another where both used CSS for styling-- which style sheet's H1 definition would be used for headers?)
And FWIW, while I like left-drag-select and middle-click-paste sometimes. I find it annoying too. Because it fails miserably at replacing on the fly. Once you drag to select text to paste over you have wiped the clipboard clean.
For a fantastic demonstration of the real problem. Go into GNOME-terminal. Select some text. Press ctrl-c to copy (since that's the standard shortcut). Whoops. You just killed your running process if you had one.
I do not have a signature
X is not slow by design. Look at SGI machines, they all run X. Even the really old 30Mhz ones will provide a nice snappy GUI experience and they were made in 91! The linux implementation needs further refinement which is some of what this project looks to provide (finally).
As far as the eye-candy goes, you are right for many casual/home users. With regard to enterprise computing you are dead wrong. People are supposed to be working with their machines. The less that gets in the way of that, the better.
Do we need the work? For sure. Is any of this stuff work replacing X. Not a bloody chance. X plays hard in the enterprise computing space, saving money & time through central administration and effective use of avaliable computing resources. Buffers simply cannot compare.
Network transparancy was wonderful and innovative 20 years ago. Just think, networks were young then and they still bothered to build it. Today, we have networks everywhere, and people call for the removal of the network display feature? WTF! Now is the time to be pushing it because the networks/ OS / hardware are all dirt cheap!
The only reason people say this sort of thing is because of the PC mindset.
X is great today, and it is going to continue to get better. Most of the old slashdot responses are dead on in that regard. Will we get the eye-candy nirvana you claim other systems have?
Given the excellent response qualities of my SGI, running X, I would say it is only a matter of time for Linux...
Blogging because I can...