Slashdot Mirror
freedesktop.org xlibs 1.0 Released
Daniel Stone writes "A short time ago, freedesktop.org xlibs 1.0 was released. Simply put, this is the collection of libX11, libXext, and other little-used libraries that kind of power your whole desktop. The xlibs team at fd.o are now maintaining all these libraries, and more, and we're going to be making releases as part of the fd.o platform, which is far more wide-ranging, but it still forms an important part of the platform. Share and enjoy!"
What is your definition of "Doesn't depend on"?
They both use xlib exclusively for drawing!
QT (and possibly GTK) exists in a version for embedding/framebuffer devices, but that's not the version you see in everyday KDE/Gnome.
With great numbers come great responsibility!
Virtually every toolkit out there uses xlib. It really isn't
"little used", but rather key part of the whole *nix desktop.
And X is NOT slow. For what it does, it does it quite efficiently, and it even has network transparancy thrown in for "free", because of the way it works. Just because the code base of XFree86 is a bit aged and has accumulated a lot of cruft over the years, doesn't mean the initial design is flawed. It was ahead of it's time, and it's still relevant.
Oh, and X works pretty good for me. Haven't seen a crash because of X in years. Maybe it's something else (buggy driver? broken hardware?) that's plagueing you. It's not X, in any case.
XFree86 Has Not Merged With X.Org (see News)
[23 January 2004] http://www.xfree86.org/
So have they merged or not merged?
Don't forget to remove the line containing "killall X" in your crontab !
What's the DBUS ?
/., I said something silly instead.
It's dthing you get on to go to work in when you don't want to get dcar out of dgarage mon.
Or, put another way, I don't have a fscking clue so, in the greatest tradition of
One more question. Whats the diffrence between the freedesktop xlibs, and the xlibs in XFree86 ? I understand they forked from XFree at one point. What did they change/improve ?
D-BUS is the replacement for DCOP. "Agnostically" written in C this time to help GNOME developers swallow (not so agnostically though since Glib kept sneaking in, but fortunately got replaced in the end).
It does have a few neat features that DCOP doesnt. Like being system-wide, and thus support signals from the kernel (implemented by HAL) and signals from other non-desktop application like Apache.
I've used linux for years, but still get confused when people bring up this subject. I can't make heads or tails of all the different X's being bandied about. Half the time I can't tell if it's a group of people or a program.
X11, x.org, xfree86, X Consortium, X Window(s?), not to mention freedesktop.org which is commonly mentioned in the same breath - i'm sure i'm missing some.
I'm sure there's others that would appreciate an unscrambling of the relationships between the x's
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
Every single X program uses xlib directly or indirectly. So GTK always uses it, and QT uses it except when using a framebuffer directly or using some other underlying mechanism (like non-X11 Mac, IIRC).
Chances are that X isn't what's crashing for you, but rather some program running under X (unless you have hardware problems, a bad driver, a corrupted X server, or something like that). X is also generally quite fast, but most programs (such as any that use GTK or QT, except for really recent ones) use it extremely badly.
Actually, what is generally slow about X is that is doesn't have the drawing primitives that modern interfaces want to use, so they have to implement them inefficiently with the available primitives. Present development is helping to rectify this situation, however.
And X is NOT slow.
He is right about X not being slow. The problem is the perception thats X is slow. X is what is visual to the user, users either blame KDE/Gnome or X.
Take a pre-emptive low latency linux kernel and run X on it, its like night and day, its smooth, fast, which proves its not X but the kernel.
Windows cheats and loads the gui extremely fast, but if you watch your hardrive light, and tool tray, you will noticed things are still being loaded in the background. The system is busy for a few more seconds. You can load an application, and it waits till after the services start.
So, X seems slow compared to other OS's.
1. Long delays to get into KDE/Gnome, and actually use the system.
2. Slow response on user input.
3. Multitasking, switching apps pause the system.
4. Loading directories in ICON/Image view takes longer than windows.
5. Lindows has everything running as Root for a speed boost.
I predict we will see pre-emptive, low lantency kernels as standard on Mandrake and Suse. Preemptive kernels are now standard on 2.6.x (well, if you check the box). And even more pre-linking to help boot time.
BSD has the same issues. Apple's X server does seem faster than both Linux & BSD. I'm only running window maker on it, so its not an exact match, but task switching and running gimp does seem more reponsive.
Could the answer be the mach kernel osx uses? Maybe we need a new suite of benchmarks for user interaction. (os+X+wm/etc).
-
I code in my SecondLife
From The DCOP site:
So DCOP does depend on Qt. Also, it is written in C++, whereas the GNOME libraries are almost always written in C (I'm not saying this is better, this is just how it's been done). Until DCOP doesn't depend on Qt and gets a binding to C, I see no reason why the GNOME project shouldn't pursue DBUS. (Had to post as AC because I have bad karma...)
...so you could say that, um, DBUS ran over DCOP? Tragic.
Now, I know I'm responding to an Offtopic troll, but...
OpenGL is an API for talking to a Vector and/or Raster drawing subsystem. It works for 3d and 2d drawing. Where hardware acceleration for vector drawing exists (ie most modern desktops) OpenGL can send the drawing commands direct to the Video Card, without rasterizing the result first. This means that vector applications (such as SVG rendering) can operate a whole lot faster, and are simpler to code.
Where the application is not running on the same machine as the display, sending GLX vector commands rather than rasterized images can be much faster. Also, it does not load the machine significantly more than having application-side rasterization where acceleration hardware doesn't exist.
So by working on OpenGL (which is mostly a server issue, not an XLib issue), developers are working on SVG, Animated Everything, and faster 2d.
IMHO, every major C project should use glib. It is fairly lightweight and provides a lot of the features that C programmers end up carrying around anyway. It's certainly not a Gnome thing in the strictest sense. You could ship glib with KDE and have no dependence on Gnome, GTK+ or anything else like that.
Glib 2.0 also includes GObject, the core object system on which Gtk+ and Gnome are based, though again, you could write grep using these objects, they're not graphics-specific.
D-BUS wasn't something the GNOME people thought up. The freedesktop.org people modeled it after DCOP, but made it independent of KDE's framework so the GNOME people could use it. The plans for D-BUS in KDE seem uncertain. Some developers want to just ditch D-COP entirely and use D-BUS, since D-BUS is similar. Others want to bridge D-COP and D-BUS, and retain D-COP for intra-KDE communication, and use D-BUS for inter-desktop communication.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I can't agree more. I recently wrote a fairly complicated proxy server and using glib (combined with the gnet libraries) has completely saved me. The glib routines for building quick hashtables, lists, and dynamic strings (all in C) make so many aspects of my life easier. By using a glib dynamic string as my input buffer, I can easily grow it to accomodate the incoming data rather than having to do all the realloc stuff myself.
I think glib (at least the routines for data types -- lists, hash tables, strings, etc) should be in the C standard library. The gobject stuff, while useful, should always be in a separate library.
The fd.o xserver is about 1 mb, and the X11 libraries to drive your apps weigh in at around 1 mb or so stripped, I think. At least on my fd.o installation they do. Also kdrive + libs + gtk2 + apps runs comfortably on a device like the Zaurus. Of course that's with no openGL stuff, or xinerama or xprint. But it does include freetype, xft, xrender, xdamage, composite, etc. The basic libraries are quite compact. If you really look at it, 1mb for kdrive, 1mb for libraries, plus maybe 5 mb for gtk2, an X11-based enbedded environment (supporting just one kind of display hardware) is very light and competitive with the Qtopia framebuffer system. Given that, I can't see any reason do use qt-embedded or gtk-fb for most things.
Some of those things in your list are not really libraries providing an api, but rather utilities, many of which on an embedded environment aren't needed.
Yeah, and what kind of non-bloated non-gtk/qt applications do you run in your non-bloated window manager?
psavo, a wmaker user himself
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
Nothing happens when I issue the following command
/dev/fd.o /mnt/floppy
mount
Am I using this wrong?
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Are the people at XFree86 maintaining xlibs also? Will this be imported back at XFree86? The release email says xlibs is actively maintained by fd.o (does this mean it is not actively maintained by xf86.org?), but does this mean fd.o will become the official version (i.e., the version bundled in the mainstream distros)? Or will they be two competing implementations?
IIRC, Debian already uses libXft from fd.o (which is a bit obvious, as Keith Packard is in fd.o).
AFAIK DCOP doesn't depend on Qt directly and has C-bindings. The problem is with depending on C++, and depending on Qt for communicating with KDE-programs. Many KDE-programs uses the Qt-internal structures to stream over DCOP, that makes it very difficult to communicate with them without Qt.
The headline that got put on the press release was misleading. The reality is that X.Org has been reformed to be more like the GNOME Foundation. There will be open elections to appoint a board. Votes will no longer be obtained through monetary contributions; in other words, any one can have a vote and be elected, no matter their affiliation. The actual information handed out by X.Org should be posted on their site in the next few days, which includes the mission statement and aims of the project.
Some developers that have at one time or another been associated with XFree86 are participating in the reformation of X.org. How that translated into "XFree86 and X.org have mereged" in the headline is beyond me.
Harold
Things That Happen When You Say 'X Windows'
THE OFFICAL NAMES
The official names of the software described herein are:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
Note that the phrases X.11, X-11, X Windows or any permutation thereof, are explicitly excluded from this list and should not be used to describe the X Window System (window system should be thought of as one word).
The above should be enough to scare anyone into using the proper terminology, but sadly enough, it's not. Recently, certain people, lacking sufficient motivation to change their speech patterns, have fallen victim to various 'accidents', or 'misfortune'. I've compiled a short list of happenings, some of which I have witnessed, others which remain heresay. I'm not claiming any direct connection between their speech habits and the reported incidents, but you be the judge... And woe betide any who set the cursed phrase into print!
You are forced to explain toolkit programming to X neophytes.
Bob Schiefler says, "You should know better than that!"
The Power Supply (and unknown boards) on your workstation mysteriously give up the ghost.
Ditto for the controller board for the disk on your new Sun.
Your hair falls out.
xmh refuses to come up in a useful size, no matter what you fiddle.
You inexplicitly lose both of your complete Ultrix Doc sets.
R2 won't build.
Bob Schiefler says "Type 'man X'".
Your nifty new X screen saver just won't go away.
The window you're working in loses input focus. Permanently
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
I think, right now, you're looking more like the fanatic.
Put identity in the browser.
A C++ program can rely on a glib-based C library just as easily (perhaps somewhat easier, due to the consistent object model) as on any other C library. There is no problem here at all.
"Using Glib in KDE is pointless"
Using glib in DBUS is not however, and using DBUS in KDE is not... moot point. Also keep in mind that KDE's reliance on C++ and C++'s platform difficulties (SOME of which went away with the finalization of the ANSI standard a few years back) was exactly the reason that Sun had to choose Gnome as their desktop, even though they prefered KDE at the time. They had to support two compilers though, and if you can't lock customers into a compiler, C is the only way to fly (Java is as close as it gets otherwise, and it might be ok after another decade or two to mature).
I'm not language zeloting here... I see the value of C++ accedemically, but building software in it DOES cut you off from the rest of the world in the sense that the many, many thousands of C-based software projects and products in the world then have a hard time making any use of you at all.