Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Prepares For Xorg Instead of XFree86
ZuperDee writes "I noticed in the development branch of Fedora today that they appear to be in the process of creating new xorg RPMs, and from the looks of the changelogs in those RPMs, it looks like their ultimate plan is to switch from XFree86 to the XOrg Foundation's implementation of X11. Anyone else here think this could signal the beginning of a new trend in Linux distributions, and that XOrg could end up becoming the new de-facto X11 implementation?" (See this earlier story,too.)
this is a fork so it should be compatible
The X.org server is basically a branch from Xfree just before the licence change. They should be very similiar at this point.
I think the XOrg codebase is pretty much the last pre-license-change (4.4rc2) release, plus work done by the folks recently run out of XFree86 by Dawes.
Of course, Gosling was never an X architect. Those were Scheifler, Gettys and Newman. Gosling was the architect of NeWS, a competing windowing system that ultimately lost out to X. Yes, IHBT. Thank you and good night.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Could somone go over the diffrences between X11 and Xorg? Is it just a license issue, or are there other differences?
X11 is the 11th iteration of the X protocol. XOrg, XFree86, and most commercial X servers speak X11R6 these days. Speaking the X protocol is key to interoperability from Unix to Unix.
X11 as a protocol doesn't have a license issue that i am aware of. Did you by any chance mean the differences between XFree86 and XOrg?
If that is what you meant, then the answer is simple, XOrg is a branch right before the XFree86 license change, so it's pretty safe to say that XOrg isn't too different at all at this point in time.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
That's what the XRender and Xft are for! They are full replacements for the old rendering model and font subsystem.
Hmm, the link is to xorg.freedesktop.org. Are you sure you got what you wanted? It looks like they ARE using the fork.
To expand more helpfully on the previous poster's comment...
XFree86 and XOrg are both implementations of X11. X11 is technically a protocol, not a particular program. This is why X11 has persisted for so long despite repeated attempts to dislodge it. Everybody who tries to do something better forgets that X11 is a protocol, and that's actually why it's so popular. They usually end up implementing something that's an API, which is just all wrong.
The XOrg implementation of X11 is a fork of the XFree86 codebase, just before XFree86 changed its license to be not quite free enough for most people to be comfortable using it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Considering that it's the X.Org foundation that is maintaining the X11 standard, the compatibility is a given - their X11 implementation IS the reference implementation of X11.
C'mon now...
Besides, if you never read the articles, and just look at the exceprts, you'd never know about the asparagus. What asparagus, I hear you ask? My point exactly.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
There are two Xservers at freedesktop.org, the one this FAQ goes to is not the one implemented in Fedora core. The one in Fedora core is a fork of XFree. The one this FAQ is for is a newer and interesting one albeit not ready for prime time yet.
Who modded up this as "Insightful"? It's nothing more than clueless bashing.
X11 is a standard, not an implementation! Just like HTML is a standard!
That distro A uses XFree86 and distro B uses XOrg means absolutely nothing to end users. Everything's still interoperable because X11 is a standard. Everything will still Just Work(tm) and the end user won't even notice something has changed.
How about "key to interoperability between X client and X server". Remember that X was implemented on VMS as well as on Unix, not to mention the version in X terminals and various emulators for MSWindows and Mac.
Thats the source for the kernel interface, not the X driver itself..thats a binary.
Umm... as far as i know, you CAN use the existing drivers with it. It's a fork of XFree86.
I don't use Emacs; it uses me.
Xorg is a barely couple-month old fork of XFree86 that took place right before XFree switched to their new lisence. Driver compatibility isn't going to be an issue.
Alright, there's been a shitload of ignorant posts here.
First off, this new server is a snapshot of XFree86 just prior to the licence change. Basically a fork.
Second, it basically has nothing to do with X.org - I don't know why they call it that, most likely due to the licence.
Third, X11 is the protocol that X servers speak nowadays. X version 11 release 6.6 to be more precise.
Fourth, nvidia and ati drivers will work.
I hope this clears it up somewhat.
Xouvert differs from the others in that it appears to be a dead project.
Kind of strange, but not really. Just one project (freedesktop.org) providing excellent free CVS hosting for free desktop projects, and two very similar projects with very different leadership joining.
Let's stamp out this rumor before it spreads further. The new FD.O X server is under the standard MIT X license, not the LGPL!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Methinks that you're confused. X.org is seperate from the FD.O X server. X.org is a derivative of XFree86. FD.O is different.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Umm ok
First its based on XFree86 4.4 just before the change, with the non-contaminated further changes added and other stuff not in XFree 4.4
Secondly it has a _lot_ to do with X.org. The wheel has turned full cicle from when years back OpenGroup/X.org tried to change the license and XFree basically told them to go away to today where X.org is doing the same thing the other way around and keeping it free. X.orgi is part of this now.
NVidia and ATI drivers may work. The Nvidia ones at least are reported ot do so, although they have chronic problems working with the preferred kernel build settings like 4K stacks.
X.Org is something very new. It is just a complete fork of Xfree86 4.4 rc2, which was the last version before the license change. X.Org's sole reason of existence, is the license change in XFree86.
Xouvert is also based on Xfree86, but it is a bit different than X.Org. Xouvert was started when it became apparent that XFree86 guys were too reluctant to change, and to commit new codes and technologies. If I am not mistaken, the Xouvert project started in summer of last year, with the goal of being a more experimental branch of Xfree86 i.e: they would accept code more easily than XFree86 guys. They also stated that they want to seperate the drivers from other parts, so that one can add a driver of a new chip, to a old release of X. I don't know how succesful they have been in this front.
And aside from all of these, is the Free Desktop.org's X Server. This X Server, mostly written by Keith Packard is not mature for every-day use yet, but I think of it as the future of Open Source X. It is mostly a complete rewrite, and it is not a fork of XFree86, though it has borrowed some libraries from the latter one.
--
Let's seperate the code-bases from the organizations. There are a couple of organizations:
:)
XFree86, Inc. - The old organization, mainly consisting of David Dawes at this point.
Xouvert - Splinter group that forked X awhile ago, with the intention of being a cooperative competitor.
X.org - Formerly X Consortium. Bunch of companies and developers working on the X11R6.x reference codebase.
Freedesktop.org - Umbrella project for various desktop-related Linux projects
Now, there are some implementations:
XFree86 - De-facto standard on Linux, by XFree86, Inc. Based on the X11R6.x reference codebase.
Xouvert - Fork of XFree86 (circa 4.3?) by the Xouvert project.
X.org server - Don't confuse this with the X.org reference codebase. This is a fork of XFree86 4.4-RC2 (before the license change). Now its under the X.org umbrella, and is hosted on freedesktop.org (that's the confusing part
FD.O X - Keith Packard and friend's new, fancy X server. Development hotbed for new technologies like transparency, OpenGL-acceleration, etc.
There are a couple of seperate sub-components to note here. The FD.O X server supports a number of DDXs (basically, driver layers). There is the kdrive-based DDX, the XFree86-based DDX (called Xizzle, theoretically compatible with XFree86 drivers).
There will eventually be another DDX designed from the ground-up for OpenGL acceleration. The device-independent portion of the FD.O server is, IIRC, derived from an older version of XFree86.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Didn't I say as much?
The X.org X server is XFree84 4.4-RC2 + bits. It is hosted on freedesktop.org
The FD.O X server is KDrive (which is derived from XFree86, in part) + bits. It is also hosted on freedesktop.org.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Cuz its confusing. What you ran was not the X.org X server, but the freedesktop.org X server. Its where all the fancy transparency stuff is being developed. To support that stuff, they'll have a new driver model designed to take full-advantage of OpenGL. Since those aren't ready yet, they're using the kdrive model, which is where the low-refresh rates and general lack of acceleration come in.
The X.org X server is the XFree86 4.4 codebase, so it is binary-compatible with the ATI/NVIDIA drivers.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
There are two X servers at freedesktop.org now, both with stupid and confusing names but hey :)
1) Xserver - this is the new experimental one that does pretty drop shadows and stuff. Not really mainstream yet. This is the fork of kdrive.
2) Xorg - this is the fork of XFree before the licensing change. It's not experimental and is usable just like XFree is.
Hope that helps
It was about more than the license change.
The main problem was that many folks got fed up with the very closed nature of XFree86 development. Many decisions about the project were made by fiat in non-public mailing lists. These core group of developers were often unwilling to explore new features or allow new developers. The barrier to entry for obtaining CVS access to the source was high. Thus, many developers who were not part of the core group got annoyed and decided to stop submitting patches to XFree86. Thus, all these derivatives were born that promise a more community-oriented development process.
The license change was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
The GPL does not prevent forks, and no one at the FSF will claim it does. In fact a large number will probably tell you that one of the benefits is that it allows Free Software forks.
What it does do, is prevent non Free forks.
Advanced users are users too!
I'm expecting that the majority of distros will very quickly follow Fedora.
I know for a fact that Debian, Gentoo, and a few others are specifically NOT touching XFree86 4.4 (i.e. post-license-change), and are looking for alternatives.
X.org sounds like it is currently the most mature alternative, and will likely have the marketshare XFree86 does within months, unless David Dawes pulls his head out of his ass and stops shooting himself in the foot. He doesn't seem to realize that his license change is going to make XFree86 a defunct project VERY quickly.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
While the freedesktop.org screenshots are pretty, they ignore that X11 was developed too long ago. To many of those items in the pretty pictures would, on most X servers, give messages ranging from "extension 'this_weeks_version_of_something_like_render' not found" to "SIGSEGV".
X has some serious problems. Too much functionality has been put into optional extensions. Not to mention that widgets and toolkits should be part of the server, not compiled into the client. We've learned some things about windowing system design in the last 25 years.
The freedesktop demos wouldn't look so good if the server was running on Solaris and was displaying clients running on the other side of a 56 kbps link.
X has outlived the usefulness of its design. It's time to move on.
Support SETI@home
I currently installed the rpms by Mike Harris from redhat/fedora on my Fedora Core 2 Test install and it works great. I simply had to reinstall my nvidia drivers, which work fine for everyone out there worried they won't work, and it runs fine. I for one am glad they are making this transition. It is time that X be open and maintained by a community with bugzilla. As more and more patches are sent and applied more companies may produce patches for their hardware since they are actually being accepted. This in my opinion is going to do nothing but help and improve a users experience with linux.
It would be a nice demonstration of the claim that opensource software can adapt quickly to 'breaks' in incompatable licenses (and unwanted behaviour).
This is not all (directly) about licenses. Keith Packard has done most of the new, interesting functionality in XFree86 for some time. By going with him, they are aiming for more modern functionality in their X server. XFree86 is very conservative about new functionality.
May we never see th
X11 was X11 right from the start as far as I remember. The 11 stands for one megapixel (as in a display 1000x1000) and one MIP (million instructions per second).
Sorry, the 11 is a version. From "man X":
I'm guessing your megapixel*MIPS was a retcon. Some of us are actually old enough to barely remember when X10 was just passing out of relevance, and I'd imagine a few of us remember before that. Versions before X10 were never really relevant outside of MIT. X10 was 1986, X11 was 1987, and there's been various X11R*s since then. Today, we use X11R6.4, but many programs want lots of extensions on top of it (eg, XRender). Since many of these have only been implemented on XFree86, that's now a de-facto standard.
Why abandon one of the greatest technologies ever created in computer world?
X-Windows is, just as it says, a server.
One of the greatest things about it is it's network transparency. X-Windows, is still ahead of it's time. Microsoft introduced Terminal Services back in 97 or 98 for Windows NT Server TSE, long time after X-Windows existed, and it still is not as powerfull as X11, it only draws the whole screen through a pipe, compresses it and sends-it to a client. X11 does a lot more than that, it has security is a number of forms (e.g. ACL based), it has support for extensions - which is soo great, and it tells the client which extensions it supports, it has speed (when not over the network) using UNIX Sockets instead of TCP. Even over the network it's fast. If you think that running mozilla remotely on a 56k is slow, think of the alternatives.
Also XFS is great. Imagine you're in a DTP office. You need hundreds of fonts, an UNICODE font can have 20MBytes, or more, why should those fonts be copied on all the stations? One central station for all of them is enough.
You want remote desktop? Just thing XDMCP.
X11 should NOT have an integrated widget set in it. That is because, it's multi-os, multi-platform, you can't expect all the platforms to have the same widget set, toolkit, just think embeded devices here. Not to mention that there is already a standard widget set as defined by IEEE(or was it ISO?) standards: motif. Unfortuantely motif is getting kinda old.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
It's not one of the "greatest technologies ever created in computer world." You've got to be kidding me. Then you go into a long advertising spiel on X11.
Anyway, here are the reasons listed in Mark's paper:
"The X Window System [23] is the de facto standard graphical user interface (GUI) system on UNIX and UNIX-like platforms such as GNU/Linux. However, as X approaches its 20th year, signs of its age are beginning to show. Commonly cited problems with X include:
Aside from the user interface inconsistency, the lack of standard components also makes internationalisation difficult, particularly for languages which require a complex input method.
Although the X protocol supports extensions very well, some of the latest extensions have begun to interfere with each other. For example, when Xinerama (the extension which allows X desktops to span multiple monitors) was first released, it broke XVideo (the extension which allows X to use hardware accelerated overlays for video play back). The 'fix' for this was to allow XVideo to only work on the primary display. The latest extension, XRandR (Rotate and Resize), is also known to break many older applications which assume that the screen size will never change.
Further, the internal design of X itself is outdated. Even adding a simple feature, such a stranslucent windows, requires large changes to the server [17]. Because of the requirement to be backwardly compatible, these features must be implemented for everything that X works on, including two-colour displays.