Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mandrakelinux Goes X.org

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the teaching-a-lesson dept.

dvalin writes "With Mandrakelinux now going for X.org it seems like every big linux distributor now has officialy dumped XFree86. First release for cooker was announced on the changelog list the 7th of June: http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/changelog/2004-0 6/msg00799.php Nice to see for all us cookers out there:) Also on another note, Mandrakelinux has also switched to gcc-3.4 now"

36 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. xorg changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't understand why everyone is switching to x.org when it's known that there will be significant changes coming in the next couple of releases. It seems to me like that's begging for problems.

    1. Re:xorg changes by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it's becoming increasingly apparent that MandrakeSoft doesn't care much about stability anyway :(

      No kidding. When I did a review of Mandrake 10.0, I found that nearly all the software was beta stuff, and that the system was about as stable as a dog in flight. That's not to say that it won't work for most people, but they do go out of their way to be "so sharp I bleed before you cut me" edge.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    2. Re:xorg changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's because the distros that are switching are "business interests" who "have chosen to discriminate against XFree86" because they want to "exploit and manipulate *volunteers*." In other words, "just another name for slavery."

      (Quotations from David Dawes, President of XFree86.)

    3. Re:xorg changes by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had very similar experience to yours with Mandrake 10.0. I deleted a perfectly stable system (Arch Linux) to try it out, too.

      I've tried two of the current major commercial distros now (Mandrake 10.0 and SuSE 9.1). Both had some nice features but had the minor drawback that they didn't work reliably. If the distro companies can't create a stable system with no show-stopper bugs, why bother adding features? I'm back on Arch now, which is faster and more stable than either.

    4. Re:xorg changes by 13Echo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      X.org *is* pulled right from an XF86 4.4 release candidate. It even has the same bugs that XF86 4.4 has (like the broken XV overlay code).

    5. Re:xorg changes by 13Echo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a friend that is using EPIAs with PXE as well. Claims it works flawlessly for connecting to Windows servers with RDP as well. Cheap and effective. ;)

    6. Re:xorg changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And like in many failing projects I've seen once the rats leave the sinking ship strange loudmouths turn up who in a rage of hurrying obedience defend their masters against all accusations (including imagined and perceived ones).

    7. Re:xorg changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They would be nuts to do this,

      Yes I agree, but there are lots of people screaming to remove this "unused cruft" from X and make it faster.

      I guess I am looking at more that the newly formed X.org is not fully solidified in what they are planning. It can easily get out of control with feature creep and start making changes that can break things fast.. .espicalyl with features that a small subset use like the X networking protocols and functions. there are at least 1000 X users that only use it locally on the desktop to every X user that is using remote X terminals.. making the 1000 happy at the expense if the one is very tempting.

    8. Re:xorg changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      FreeDesktop is in fact talking about tossing XLib all together and then reimplementing X11 legacy-compatibility around another library. Go check the whitepapers.

    9. Re:xorg changes by auzy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reason isn't only because of the licensing, its also because Xfree86 was a badly managed project.. It was very common for programmers to write code which wasn't accepted (I heard for instance the cygwin coders spent a very long time coding patches which they refused to accept).

      They also moved slowly.. At the rate Xfree86 was going.. in 10 years maybe we'd be getting up to OS X level, but with xorg, I know a few people are working on the compositing already (the stuff needed for the translucent window effects and stuff), and libraries like cairo I'd imagine will be better utilised.

      So, many of the flames here I think are wrong, and are made by people who have no idea what the current situation is.. In fact, I'm betting that it will be a year tops until everyone here is thankful of the changes..

      I'm not a coder for Xorg, but I do hang around the channel alot, and have seen how fast Xorg is evolving (I do code though)

      Anyway, you want simple applications, and maybe a bit more stable server, go Xfree86.. If you want something, that is more cutting edge, can easily produce nice next generation effects that can surpass longhorn, Xorg is your best choice for the future.

      Haven't you noticed that nothing has visibly changed in X since the first accellerated ones came out, other then more drivers (lets face it, you could still run Xfree86 3.3 and get pretty much the same experience then now, if your drivers worked on it). Xorg however will add extensions that will finally make it worth while enough to be hoping for an upgrade.

    10. Re:xorg changes by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey Lumpy! Fellow thin client businessman, here.
      Rest at ease. I would've been worried, too, but x.org is working with (under?) freedesktop.org, of which Jim McQuillan is a founding member. Since he makes his living off of thin client consulting and LTSP, I don't think we have to worry.

      I actually feel safer than I previously did with the future of XF86.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    11. Re:xorg changes by stevey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It will certainly be interesting to see how many of these patches now get in.

      The Debian X Strike Force produce a packaged version of X which runs on more platforms than the native version, seeing those patches folded in would be wonderful news.

    12. Re:xorg changes by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why mod as a troll when i call bullshit.

      XF86 isn't broken, it isn't slow when compiled right either(okay only gentoo does it right all the time). It has several advanced features that no other GUI system uses. Transparent network support at the top of the list. That's right you don't have to load a whole desktop to use one app you can just load the app.

      Now XF86 does need updates for the 21 Century. it can use enhancements, and changes to fix the bugs that the developers wouldn't fix.

      If anything the XFree86 team is afraid of change, and it cost them. Linux users don't mind change as a large percentage of them are willing to run beta software and help fix it. Change and Linux go hand in hand, most of the people who currently use Linux, can run multiple Kernenl's and mulitple UI's. Something most windows users can't even grasp.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:xorg changes by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I just read that thread (and a few others) and it's the most depressing thing I've seen all day. The tone, the quality of the discussion, etc, is like reading an Amiga advocacy list - and I don't mean in 1990, I mean today. The paranoia, the outdated view of the world, the extremist rhetoric.

      If Dawes, Georgina, et al, represent the current direction of XFree86, then XFree86 is dead. And for what? A clause in a license that does something that could have been achieved by friendlier, more flexible, means? A failure to work within the FOSS communities to achieve it because of apparent hostility to the GPL?

      What a depressing end to a great project. I hope X.org succeeds where XFree86 could have done.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:xorg changes by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In defense of XFree86, they came about due to 2 reasons:
      1. The X org was not truely open source.
      2. Xorg was moving way too slowly.
      It is humourous that this has come full circle. It also shows that the way to usurp an open source project is be more OSS and work harder. :)
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. and this means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    can someone explain the benefits to me in real terms? performance?

  3. Differences? by TEMM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What are the differences between XFree86 and X.org, besides the liscences and names? I havnt really had any experiences with X.org

    1. Re:Differences? by Karamchand · · Score: 5, Interesting

      X.org is actively developed while XFree86 is only maintained at best because most high-profile X developers from XFree86 have changed to X.org.

    2. Re:Differences? by starseeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As far as the end user is concerned, there are relatively few differences between X.org and XFree86 at this point. X.org is a fork of XFree86, and even if they were gung ho to change everything no project the size of XFree86 is going to get radically altered overnight. (Which I don't think they are, bty.)

      I made the switch on Gentoo, where it was very painless. For distros without such a smooth upgrade path and/or non-geek inclined folk it might be better to wait for the next release of the distro (since a foobared X install is a little hard to fix without experience on the command line.) But if you're worried about programs not working or anything like that, there shouldn't be any issues at this point.

      The experimental work is, IIRC, focused primarily on the freedesktop Xserver. The major difference between X.org and XFree86 is things will get fixed sooner, driver releases will be better handled, etc. The license change was just the last in a long, long line of problems - fixes made by the cygwin folk, for example, were rotting without ever being applied to the main tree. I don't know all the details of that incident, but I don't think it is the only such either. The XFree86 team wasn't so worried about being responsive to the needs of XFree86 users. (Which is their right, of course, since most of us aren't paying them. But nor should they be surprised by a fork.) X.org is the place for people who want XFree86, but managed correctly and in an open manner. Those who want adventure and bleading edge should scope out freedesktop.org. I don't know what will happen to XFree86 - likely they will keep on the way they have been, with fewer users. I get the sense this won't bother them much, either, but I could be wrong.

      --
      "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  4. Are there any advantages other than licensing? by desplesda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems to me that the major distros are all jumping to X.org because of the XF86 licensing issue. Are there any other advantages to X.org, or are distros just jumping to it over what looks like a quite trivial license change?

    1. Re:Are there any advantages other than licensing? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the immediate sense, X.org is barely different from XFree86 4.4.0. They're almost the same code.

      However, this fork wasn't made merely because of the licensing issues. XFree86 development has been fairly slow, as well as not really being focused on some of the sort of improvements that would actually help end-users. To the best of my understanding, the X.org people are much more focused on helping Linux become a "desktop" OS than XF86 was.

      So, the first release of X.org looks like XF86, and it was a good choice to make it close to identical, to help migration, and it means they're starting from the solid base XF86 provided. However, we should be seeing some real improvements soon (hopefully).

    2. Re:Are there any advantages other than licensing? by juhaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      New features to X protocol have always been done as extensions that are not needed for core parts but may be useful for specialized applications, no reason for this to change, focus in desktop or not.

      Is this new "desktop" going to be like Aqua where you can only use a tiny handful of high end video cards?

      Yes. In a sense that they may allow extensions and patches that make use of features in high-end video cards. This stuff is not unheard of in XFree86 either. XRender, XVideo anyone?

      Or are they going to cater to the "Linux isn't ready for the desktop until it can do Doom at 333FPS! crowd?

      Yes. Again, if someone has something to give that makes Doom (it already goes way over 333FPS btw) or 3D graphics in general run faster, why not? DRI anyone?

      Are they going to dump their traditional policy-neutral stance and tell us what window managers and environments to use?

      No.

      And what about those of us who don't use Linux, will we be left behind as X.org makes the software kernel specific?

      Linus would never allow graphics core in kernel, Linux is not Windows. Nevertheless let's pretend it is, if X.org would do, for example, performance sensitive parts of drivers in kernel space like NVidia and ATI, again: So what? It would still work in your OS, albeit bit slower.

      They are _adding_ optional stuff. Not removing. Not replacing.

  5. Good Thing(tm) & FP by zoloto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    XFree86 project was scuicided and this is what happens. :) Personally, any change for the better including new implementations and speed enhancements will do everyone good.

    Speaking of which, this is off topic, but has anyone gone x.org for their own machines and if so, what's the smallest compiled binaries sizes (total X install) you've come up with? I'm looking at working with DamnSmallLinux and the smaller the better, or straight out integration (unless that's pure evil)

    Post some replys, I'd love to hear from everyone.

  6. XFree"86" is for 386 .. But by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But for the record the first commercial X11 release was in 1986 ...

    The original was named X386 (yes, after an intel 386). Also I should say XFree86 was named "Free" not because it was , but because it rhymed with three.

    And that's how it ended up :)... rhymes with three, but is not free
    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
  7. Crossplatform? by pigeon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing which was nice about xfree86 is that is was very crossplatform, so it ran under linux, *bsd, solaris (etc) and on i386, ppc, arm etc. How will this be with x.org? Any plans?

  8. What does this mean for upgrading? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Suppose that I have XFree86 4.2 or 4.3 on my system, and I've been happily using apt/yum/rpm to keep myself up-to-date. How difficult is it to switch to X.org?

    If X.ORG is marked as conflicting with XFree86, then apt will uninstall XFree86 for me -- along with everything that depends on it. KDE, Gnome, all my X applications... ack!

    Or should I continue with XFree86 for a while? Obviously, my install tools don't care about license changes.

  9. How does this affect 3rd party drivers ? by farzadb82 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will/Does the NVidia or ATI drivers work in x.org ? Will NVidia/ATI support future x.org upgrades, or will they continue to support xfree ?

  10. Apple? by Compulawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple released X11, an X-windowing system based on XFree86. I wonder if X11 will change also.

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  11. Re:Proprietary Drivers by Lispy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nvidia works fine for now. That said they would be very stupid to support XFree86 any further with all those nice eyecandy waiting to happen in xorg. I am confident that they will see the benefit in xorg and abandon XFree86

  12. Okay, I'm confused... by wandazulu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How does all this affect X as distributed on non-x86 platforms? Apple's X11 app is based on XFree86, but what about X as it comes with Solaris, AIX, et al. Does IBM, Sun, etc. write their own, which conforms to the X spec, or are they in some way beholden to what happens with the XFree86 project? I don't know why I thought this, but I was under the assumption that the XFree86 project represented "official" development of X going forward, after MIT stopped working on it.

  13. Interesting by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some people on the XFree86 Forum list claim it's the vendors using Xorg for their own interests.

    --
    This guy is way out there
    1. Re:Interesting by scrytch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Some people on the XFree86 Forum list claim it's the vendors using Xorg for their own interests.

      Speaking as someone who used a vendor that XF86 ignored for years and years ... fine. You can make a statement that you won't support proprietary drivers (not so), that you'll only support a certain interface (pretty much true), and so on, but you can't just sit there and refuse to take perfectly good patches WITHOUT COMMENT.

      Good riddance to bad rubbish. I for one welcome my new conspiratorial corporate overlords, whoever they are.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  14. Re:Wow, that's gotta be a record! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There is no team. It's just David.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  15. XFree86's reaction? by jifl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what has the XFree86 project's reaction been to this? They'll have noticed the defectors to X.org like everyone else. Are they contrite or defiant?

  16. We're into this string now by Psymunn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not a question of can read. It's a question of want to read.
    SuSE is nice because a new user can set a basic install and get a nice desktop with all the bells,whistles,chameleons, and penguins a person could ever want.
    Truth be told, some people are just scared of command lines or editiing system filse (and i think there's a reason for that. Nothing like overwriting fstab accidently to really make a new user say 'this is fun, i'm convinced')

    --
    The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
  17. Re:Licence was only the last straw by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Not so, it only shows that open source is an effective model IF these transitions occur smoothly and the destination is found to be worthy the journey."

    Not really. The fact is that ALL of the choices available for proprietary software are STILL there in open-source. It's just that you also have MORE choices. So, even if this choice is not good in this situation, all of the other choices still exist.

    However, I am sure that the transition will be smooth. Why? BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED YET. Because of open-source, switching vendors does not mean that you have to change even a single line of code in your system. With the proprietary model, switching vendors means completely wrecking existing infrastructure. In those cases, your questions are valid. In this case, switching to X.org isn't really changing anything yet, just switching vendors.

    --
    Engineering and the Ultimate