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.)
I don't know enough about Xorg to know if this is good or not.
Is the driver support there? Will NVidia's and ATI's binary drivers work with the Xorg server? It could be a real problem if FC2 won't be able to do accelerated 3d under NVidia or ATI cards.
Fedora switching just means we have more choice. This is a good thing, just like KDE vs. Gnome is a good thing.
Most people will settle for whatever comes with their distro, so maybe this will give an impetus for the X group to clean up the licensing issue :-)
One of the reasons I _don't_ like the open source market. Make a comment about one of the developer's favorite movies, and a new fork is started.
Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
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
XOrg could end up becoming the new de-facto X11 implementation
It's a little early to make that kind of prediction. However, the key is compatibility. If XORG maintains full compatibility such that it's still X11 and we can just a recompile and go on our merry way, then anything is possible. Personally, I don't think people care which code base their X server uses so long as it's an X11 server. Reality is that the XF86 group will wake up an smell the coffee sooner rather than later, they're expendable, they just don't know it yet.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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
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.
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...
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...
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
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 think they'll follow whoever the biggest commercial Linux distros, and today that means RedHat and Novell/SuSE.
Why support XFree86 if the big distros are dropping it?
I good explanation for it that I read at osnews.com was that the XFree86 and the Distros (commercial and community alike) started to increasingly have differences in priorities and culture. The license change was a like message from XFree86 to the distros that they didn't care one way or another for their support. The distros response is logical. Additionally while most of the distros have pleny of software incompatible with the GPL, it is not ideal to have something as central to an operating system as the X server to be GPL-incompatible.
For the user, OSX it is a dream. But for developers, it's a wet dream. Creating slick interfaces is simple, the PDF-inspired graphical model is a breath of fresh air, and the interfaces inherit impressive functionality automatically. Because its code-development process leverages effort powerfully, perhaps more so than for the comparable GNOME/KDE tools, I think OSX offers good potential for the open-source movement, given well-fashioned attitudes and licenses.
I make these remarks with some trepidation, since I think the fragmentation across GNOME and KDE dilutes developer momentum. Also, I make these remarks to evoke discussion by those more technically-aware than myself.
There's nothing wrong with having hundreds of forks - usually it's pretty clear which one you want to go with.
Hundreds of forks?! And I have trouble remembering which one is for the salad.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Get a whole bunch of Linux advocates in a room together with a bunch of BSD advocates. Casually mention licensing. Shortly before all hell breaks loose, one or two people will mention that Linux has not forked because it's under the GPL, while laissez-faire BSD has at least a dozen forks in it. Whereupon Alan will hit Theo over the head with a copy of the GNU Manifesto, rendering him unconscious.
On a more serious note, while this is not official dogma of the FSF, and never will be while they possess at least two brain cells, it has unfortunately become an uncommon but tenacious myth among the GNU discipleship. Peruse any Slashdot story on BSD and you're likely to discover an instance of it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Please refrain from using overly simplistic arguments to support your cause. In my opinion, it wasn't JUST the license change that lead to this seemingly spiralling downfall, but the head developers of XFree86 itself (David Dawes, to be specific).
/.) and the man strikes me as positively arrogant, with no respect for the opinions of others (unless he was actually majorly outnumbered, and sometimes not even then). He has repeatedly ignored input from other people including his own co-developers and loves to portray himself as the righteous leader. His posts are nothing short of antagonistic and he has very selective memory.
I've read and re-read various threads on the XFree86 mailing list (please look it up in archives and past posts on
Would that be sufficient reason for a project to fail? In this case, I would say so. He insists on having and keeping all control of the project to himself. If he had good sense, that wouldn't be a problem, but he's already shown that all he's interested in is recognition and retaining control over the project (rather than the project's welfare).
Past posts have shown that several suggestions and patches had been ignored which led to the project's stagnation. You may argue that the project is successful and works even now, but the point is it could have been so much better under a different type of leadership.
The recent license change is but one manifestation of how callous the head developers are.
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.
...unless David Dawes pulls his head out of his ass and stops shooting himself in the foot.
He must be flexible. And good at blind shooting.
As long as people are running with X11R6 servers, they will want new apps compiled against Y-windows or whatever to run. Does the planned X11R6 compatability layer work both ways?
...) On the other hand, I've seen glitzier programs (emacs, even Mozilla) perform just fine through the same network. But I can see room for improvement. VNC seems to be faster in some ways. And Microsoft has some technology that does a similar thing fairly quickly, but that's relying on a higher-level protocol passing Windows API calls or something. So that's what you mean about integrating the widgets and toolkits somehow.
I think the optional extensions are great -- this allows for multiple implementations of X without an unbearable burden of supporting *everything*. If the process of natural selection is going to work, you want a protocol that's not overly demanding.
By separating the widgets and toolkits from the X server, you again reduce complexity and allow for multiple implementations at these different layers. I guess the widgets and themes could somehow be linked into the X server, but now I'm rapidly entering the realm of speculation.
I keep hearing the argument that X is bad because it's old. Unix is even older, and look what happened with it! I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to hear about the details. Is it necessarily true that the entire protocol is insufficient and cannot be satisfactorily extended? Why not?
I guess efficiency could be the main issue. In part it's a matter of how the clients are designed. I've seen some relatively simple (just stock widgets) Java programs that, with Sun's VM, absolutely crawl over a 10 MBit connection. I mean that it takes half a minute to redraw a quarter of a window or pop up a menu. Compression seems not to help much because it's all limited by latency. (I can imagine the communique: "Can I draw this pixel here?" "What color?" "Red." "Okay." "You sure?" "pretty sure."
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.