Posted by
michael
on from the thanks-for-all-the-fish-screensavers dept.
Nirbo writes "FreeBSD switches to X.Org, The 'HEADSUP' can be found here, and on the -x11, -current, and -ports mailing lists. Very good news for those FreeBSD users who have either changed to X.Org in anticipation, or have been waiting in hope for this momentous change."
automatic configuration
by
bcrowell
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As a FreeBSD desktop user, I'm happy about this simply because of the easier configuration of X windows, regardless of the political aspects. (Well, I'm happy about that, too, since the licensing change of XF86 seemed bogus.) Configuring X has been one of the few remaining big barriers for both Linux and FreeBSD on the desktop.
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system. I've had a lot of bad (system-breaking) experiences with it.
This is only in -CURRENT. For those of you in 5.2.1, or 4.10, you can add:
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xorg
in/etc/make.conf. For those of you running -CURRENT that want the old X, make it:
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xfree86-4
-- --If I said something interesting it probably wasn't correct
The lesson of X11....
by
evenprime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The lesson of X11 is that you can be the most popular piece of software on every distribution, and it still doesn't give you the power to play dictator with your licence. If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code and the community will embrace them, not you. You would think that people would have figured that out after the ssh/openssh split. Now we have another example in windowing systems....
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
edhall
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't think this shift is entirely a license issue.
I was chatting with one of the FreeBSD core team guys
around the time the decision was being made, and he felt that the frustration of getting fixes fed back into the XFree86 code base in a timely manner was a big part of the motivation. And this certainly isn't the first time I've heard complaints of XFree86 foot-dragging by the FreeBSD folks.
I guess you might say it's all of a piece -- the XFree86 user community simply didn't find the developers responsive (whether on license or technology), and when X.org proved a viable alternative, they voted with their feet.
-Ed
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 5, Informative
But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?
They added an advertising clause. Similar to the old BSD license.
There's a reasonable argument that the license change by itself didn't cause the exodus. It was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. There has been friction between the XFree developers and the rest of the FLOSS community for quite some time. There has even been considerable friction within the XFree team which led to the infamous "eviction" of Keith. But until recently there haven't been any realistic alternatives to XFree.
It remains to be seen whether Xorg can deliver better than XFree. Initial signs are promising; the codebase is being broken up and autotooled, cutting edge extensions like Xcomposite are being integrated, some of the best and brightest have committed themselves to Xorg instead of XFree, the distributions are backing Xorg over XFree, and (most important of all) the Xorg developers are COMMUNICATING with the rest of freedesktop.org (eg, the projects that build upon X11/XFree/Xorg). Those changes alone are a significant improvement over XFree.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
XO
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Although definitely not like any other build procedure I have ever seen in the free software world, X is probably the one piece of software that I have never had ANY problems whatsoever in building, re-building, installing, re-installing, etc.
Though I did have a big ass problem with Debian refusing to let apt do it's things the right way when I "broke" the X installation by installing a source-built XFree 4.3.0 over the then-Debian-supplied XFree 4.2.0. This is when I discovered that (a) dpkg sucks (b) Debian's X installation is a spaghetti mess (c) it's virtually impossible to remove XFree packages from a Debian installation and not remove every other program that uses X on the system, which is why I had to just plain install source-built XF over the top of the Debian installed one.
On the bright side, every time apt- would hork the XFree installation by changes having happened to the Debian files during an apt-get, a simple "make World" made my entire X installation back to the way it was supposed to be.
Now, on the other hand, I've never even cracked the bindings of XFree source. I imagine, that it's probably a myriad of horrible hacked crap dating back 10-15 years or more in several places. I imagine that it's a completely unmaintainable nightmare. And I also completely understand that there was virtually NO development happening beyond bug fixes and the occasional tweak type enhancement to XFree. XF 4 was a major update but that was still like 2 years ago. 4.1, 4.2 were mostly bug fixes, 4.3 completed some of th features for 4.0, and fixed more bugs.
I'm really curious as to if there are any differences between X.org and XFree86 in th software, yet?
-- "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!"
http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
runderwo
·
· Score: 4, Informative
(c) it's virtually impossible to remove XFree packages from a Debian installation and not remove every other program that uses X on the system, which is why I had to just plain install source-built XF over the top of the Debian installed one.
You're talking crazy talk. The client-side libraries are the only thing that X clients depend upon. You can have X applications installed on a Debian system with _no_ X server. An X application only needs the client libraries to talk to whatever server it feels like.
I've never even cracked the bindings of XFree source. I imagine, that it's probably a myriad of horrible hacked crap dating back 10-15 years or more in several places.
No, actually most of the code (excepting the display drivers) is quite clean, modular, and well-documented. But you couldn't be bothered to look before spouting off a sensational opinion, could you now?
Re:I wonder...
by
foidulus
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Heh, well all OS X users use a port of it, but who knows if they will switch too when Apple releases Tiger next year.
Re:Who's Left?
by
Homology
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So, what major linux distributions, BSD variants, or other operating systems are still using the XFree86 code base? Is the transition essentially complete?
OpenBSD is still using the latest XFree86 4.4 release candidate with the old license+drivers. And
NetBSD incorporated XFree86 4.4 with the new license.
Portupgrade neither necessary, nor sufficient
by
wirelessbuzzers
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system.
No. It says in the post:
To upgrade, you must remove your XFree86 ports and install the xorg ports. It couldn't be done with portupgrade, unfortunately, because we are keeping the XFree86 ports around.
In other words, you cannot automatically upgrade all the ports using portupgrade.
As for portupgrade becoming necessary, I don't know what you're talking about. While I use it (to keep my -CURRENT current), this is merely for convenience: I haven't seen any ports that depend on it.
-- I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Is this the place?
by
iamdrscience
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I don't know if this is the best place to mention this, but I like to pronounce "X.org" like it was all one word, i.e. sounding like "Zorg". It sounds like some futuristic GUI monster that would crush towns at its whim. This alone is enough to justify Xorg the Conqueror's rising popularity and XFree86's decline. I mean, XFree86 sounds kind of like a fighter jet, which while kind of cool, would be useless against Xorg. He would use an XFree86 fighter jet to pick his teeth! All hail Xorg!
I'm getting laid !!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
That's right, I've switched to FreeBSD...
Re:Who is left...?like
by
marcello_dl
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I agree on the AC post about bitstream vera fonts. They look very good on the notoriously unforgiving notebook screens. I prefer them over the standard ms fonts i had to install to check compatibility of web page layouts. Try them for yourself.
-- ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Short Domain
by
wfberg
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I guess to beat that, you'd need to go with a country code domain.
ai and dk should work. Due to DNS weirdness you might need to add a dot, as in ai. and dk.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Microsoft didn't steal it. That's the nature of the BSD license. We don't care if you, Microsoft, or anybody else is using the code for commercial purposes.
It's a strength, not a weakness.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
brilinux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You know, I was going to make a similar joke, but seriously, competition is always good. My laptop runs Gentoo, my desktop runs FreeBSD and WinXP. Why? Because Linux is good for a lot of desktop stuff and programming that I would be doing for school, I need XP on my desktop for gaming, and when I am not doing that, FreeBSD is something different that is nice and fast, a great server, and something that runs familiar programs that I normally run under Linux. So, do I need FreeBSD instead of Linux? No. But it serves purposes that are often different from the ones served by Linux and it is more specific in its direction and use.
There is no XFree...
by
gwalla
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Netcraft confirms it.
by
Dwonis
·
· Score: 4, Funny
XFree86 is dying.;-)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
useosx
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
BSD is important for the same reason as the lower class - to scare the shit out of the middle class.
That is the most absurdly ignorant, hateful statement I have ever read. You're telling me you think that lower class people strive every day to make enough to live on--often at the sacrifice of their own health--and that is important because it motivates the middle class to work harder at their dumb ass job they hate. You, drinkypoo, are a huge asshole. I mean, unless you're a millionaire, why the fuck are you advocating for a system that continuously fucks you over?
People walk around throwing out phrases like "laws of nature," "human nature," "the way of the world," "that's the way the world works," like there's some sort of fucking truth. You give us your cute little scenario about Linux hackers vs. BSD hackers like it's some kind of truism, like it proves something. Please.
Think about how many different cultures there are throughout the world and how different they have been throughout history. It doesn't have to be this way, folks. Want to get educated? Read a book. Want to do something? Go work for a labor advocacy group.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
rsidd
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're telling me you think that lower class people strive every day to make enough to live on--often at the sacrifice of their own health--and that is important because it motivates the middle class to work harder at their dumb ass job they hate.
No, he's saying the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever. And similarly, even if Linux is ahead in a lot of things, the BSDs will catch up (in fact, it wasn't long ago that the BSDs were ahead in most aspects of stability and performance and Linux was the "lower class" playing catch-up, and in many respects the BSDs are still ahead.) And I didn't understand very much else in your rant.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux?
Well, for one, my mouse actually works. And so does USB. Oh! And my zip drive works! And I don't randomly lose files in a crash! And my programs are more responsive. And my system stays up longer. And I'm hacked less. etc. etc. etc.
There are more advantages to an OS than just ticks on a "supports this feature" list. Supporting a feature is not the same as supporting it well. The FreeBSD guys usually don't add a feature until it's supported well. The Linux guys add the feature, then improve after everyone tells them it's broken. Both camps have their advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Do a 's/BSD/Linux/g' and you're getting pretty close. Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months? The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
That's not progress!
Progress is something like Mac OS X: build a system that is MORE usable, and MORE feature-rich than the competitor. Yet what people like you seem to miss, is that Linux is not about building a "better" system! Linux is about building a system that is "free" in Stallman and Linus's definition of the word. If that is what you want, than Linux is a great choice. If you want a "better" end-user OS than Windows, then you're going to need to compromise some of the principles on which Linux is based. Take your pick, because these goals are mutually exclusive.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
neurojab
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
>This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
So would you say that made UNIX less successful? Anyway, you're spouting nonsense. IBM and Sun were never forked from BSD. They were forked from derivations of AT&T Unix, a proprietary product.
>The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
Unix, arguably the most sucessful operating system ever, was a fiasco? Surely you jest.
The GPL was created for those who believe that software should always be free. Believe it or not, there are those of us in the industry that are totally comfortable with closed-source software as well. For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the BSD license is a good fit.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> Why do we even need FreeBSD when we have Linux? The developers of FreeBSD should abandon it and migrate over to Linux.
Because WE NEED CHOICE.
There is no reason whatsoever to turn Linux into the enxt monoculture, that in fact is one of the most important things to prevent.
Besides the fact that FreeBSD is better at specific things, but you as home linux zealot are extremely unlikely to have a need for those else you'd have known about them already and not have asked this utterly stupid question.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> See it's only these silly amateurs who think BSD is so freaking exciting.
And with that one comment you have proven yourself to be utterly and completely clueless with regards to the subject.
*BSD is not about being exciting, it is about doing its job well. That is very boring actually, nothing exciting there.
> Linux has superior support for USB
Since when? Linux USB support is such an amazingly horrible hack that it is surprising it does anything at all. I suggest you go read the source instead of posting bullshit.
only on very recent Linux versions things like my USB mouse and sd card reader started working (2.6 series kernel on gentoo) while it has worked out of the box on FreeBSD for the last 3 or 4 years at least.
> Linux actually has journaling filesystems so you don't lose files in a crash where as BSD still fails to have one,
Hrm, there exists a JFS implementation for BSD, but I would not use that for any production work. More promissing sounds the porting of XFS.
At any rate, Reiser has caused me way more problems then FFS ever did (while I have a lot more data on FFS)
I hear the same from everyone here who has seriously tried both.
Besides, you seem to be a bit clueless once more.. journaling filesystems do not prevent data loss, they prevent situations where your data and meta data is out of sync, and they provide for a rollback to resync those in case they do end up being out of sync still.
You can still lose data with that, but you will not get a filesystem that is in a inconsistant state... normally.
Now, unlike traditional ufs and filesystems like ext2fs, the FFS filesystem does not write data and metadata asynchroneously, so the inconsistancy between those two is extremely unlikely.
That said, a production quality journalling filesystem would be nice to have
I'd rather want to have FFS2 snapshop functionality to go with that tho.
> RPM hell only existed on distros that used RPM and even then it has been fixed for years with tools like urpmi, up2date and yum.
Last time I checked RPM is part of the LSB but you are right here, it is not used by every distro, and not even part of "Linux" itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone seems to be moving to xorg now. Where does this leave xfree? Not that I'm worried about it or anything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system. I've had a lot of bad (system-breaking) experiences with it.
Find free books.
This is only in -CURRENT. For those of you in 5.2.1, or 4.10, you can add:
/etc/make.conf. For those of you running -CURRENT that want the old X, make it:
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xorg
in
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xfree86-4
--If I said something interesting it probably wasn't correct
The lesson of X11 is that you can be the most popular piece of software on every distribution, and it still doesn't give you the power to play dictator with your licence. If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code and the community will embrace them, not you. You would think that people would have figured that out after the ssh/openssh split. Now we have another example in windowing systems....
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Heh, well all OS X users use a port of it, but who knows if they will switch too when Apple releases Tiger next year.
OpenBSD is still using the latest XFree86 4.4 release candidate with the old license+drivers. And NetBSD incorporated XFree86 4.4 with the new license.
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system.
No. It says in the post:
To upgrade, you must remove your XFree86 ports and install the xorg
ports. It couldn't be done with portupgrade, unfortunately, because we
are keeping the XFree86 ports around.
In other words, you cannot automatically upgrade all the ports using portupgrade.
As for portupgrade becoming necessary, I don't know what you're talking about. While I use it (to keep my -CURRENT current), this is merely for convenience: I haven't seen any ports that depend on it.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I don't know if this is the best place to mention this, but I like to pronounce "X.org" like it was all one word, i.e. sounding like "Zorg". It sounds like some futuristic GUI monster that would crush towns at its whim. This alone is enough to justify Xorg the Conqueror's rising popularity and XFree86's decline. I mean, XFree86 sounds kind of like a fighter jet, which while kind of cool, would be useless against Xorg. He would use an XFree86 fighter jet to pick his teeth! All hail Xorg!
That's right, I've switched to FreeBSD...
I agree on the AC post about bitstream vera fonts. They look very good on the notoriously unforgiving notebook screens. I prefer them over the standard ms fonts i had to install to check compatibility of web page layouts. Try them for yourself.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I guess to beat that, you'd need to go with a country code domain.
ai and dk should work.
Due to DNS weirdness you might need to add a dot, as in ai. and dk.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Microsoft didn't steal it. That's the nature of the BSD license. We don't care if you, Microsoft, or anybody else is using the code for commercial purposes.
It's a strength, not a weakness.
You know, I was going to make a similar joke, but seriously, competition is always good. My laptop runs Gentoo, my desktop runs FreeBSD and WinXP. Why? Because Linux is good for a lot of desktop stuff and programming that I would be doing for school, I need XP on my desktop for gaming, and when I am not doing that, FreeBSD is something different that is nice and fast, a great server, and something that runs familiar programs that I normally run under Linux. So, do I need FreeBSD instead of Linux? No. But it serves purposes that are often different from the ones served by Linux and it is more specific in its direction and use.
...only Xorg.
Oper on the Nightstar
XFree86 is dying. ;-)
BSD is important for the same reason as the lower class - to scare the shit out of the middle class.
That is the most absurdly ignorant, hateful statement I have ever read. You're telling me you think that lower class people strive every day to make enough to live on--often at the sacrifice of their own health--and that is important because it motivates the middle class to work harder at their dumb ass job they hate. You, drinkypoo, are a huge asshole. I mean, unless you're a millionaire, why the fuck are you advocating for a system that continuously fucks you over?
People walk around throwing out phrases like "laws of nature," "human nature," "the way of the world," "that's the way the world works," like there's some sort of fucking truth. You give us your cute little scenario about Linux hackers vs. BSD hackers like it's some kind of truism, like it proves something. Please.
Think about how many different cultures there are throughout the world and how different they have been throughout history. It doesn't have to be this way, folks. Want to get educated? Read a book. Want to do something? Go work for a labor advocacy group.
No, he's saying the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever. And similarly, even if Linux is ahead in a lot of things, the BSDs will catch up (in fact, it wasn't long ago that the BSDs were ahead in most aspects of stability and performance and Linux was the "lower class" playing catch-up, and in many respects the BSDs are still ahead.) And I didn't understand very much else in your rant.
Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux?
Well, for one, my mouse actually works. And so does USB. Oh! And my zip drive works! And I don't randomly lose files in a crash! And my programs are more responsive. And my system stays up longer. And I'm hacked less. etc. etc. etc.
There are more advantages to an OS than just ticks on a "supports this feature" list. Supporting a feature is not the same as supporting it well. The FreeBSD guys usually don't add a feature until it's supported well. The Linux guys add the feature, then improve after everyone tells them it's broken. Both camps have their advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Do a 's/BSD/Linux/g' and you're getting pretty close. Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months? The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
That's not progress!
Progress is something like Mac OS X: build a system that is MORE usable, and MORE feature-rich than the competitor. Yet what people like you seem to miss, is that Linux is not about building a "better" system! Linux is about building a system that is "free" in Stallman and Linus's definition of the word. If that is what you want, than Linux is a great choice. If you want a "better" end-user OS than Windows, then you're going to need to compromise some of the principles on which Linux is based. Take your pick, because these goals are mutually exclusive.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
>This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
So would you say that made UNIX less successful? Anyway, you're spouting nonsense. IBM and Sun were never forked from BSD. They were forked from derivations of AT&T Unix, a proprietary product.
>The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
Unix, arguably the most sucessful operating system ever, was a fiasco? Surely you jest.
The GPL was created for those who believe that software should always be free. Believe it or not, there are those of us in the industry that are totally comfortable with closed-source software as well. For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the BSD license is a good fit.
> Why do we even need FreeBSD when we have Linux? The developers of FreeBSD should abandon it and migrate over to Linux.
Because WE NEED CHOICE.
There is no reason whatsoever to turn Linux into the enxt monoculture, that in fact is one of the most important things to prevent.
Besides the fact that FreeBSD is better at specific things, but you as home linux zealot are extremely unlikely to have a need for those else you'd have known about them already and not have asked this utterly stupid question.
> See it's only these silly amateurs who think BSD is so freaking exciting.
And with that one comment you have proven yourself to be utterly and completely clueless with regards to the subject.
*BSD is not about being exciting, it is about doing its job well. That is very boring actually, nothing exciting there.
> Linux has superior support for USB
Since when? Linux USB support is such an amazingly horrible hack that it is surprising it does anything at all. I suggest you go read the source instead of posting bullshit.
only on very recent Linux versions things like my USB mouse and sd card reader started working (2.6 series kernel on gentoo) while it has worked out of the box on FreeBSD for the last 3 or 4 years at least.
> Linux actually has journaling filesystems so you don't lose files in a crash where as BSD still fails to have one,
Hrm, there exists a JFS implementation for BSD, but I would not use that for any production work. More promissing sounds the porting of XFS.
At any rate, Reiser has caused me way more problems then FFS ever did (while I have a lot more data on FFS)
I hear the same from everyone here who has seriously tried both.
Besides, you seem to be a bit clueless once more.. journaling filesystems do not prevent data loss, they prevent situations where your data and meta data is out of sync, and they provide for a rollback to resync those in case they do end up being out of sync still.
You can still lose data with that, but you will not get a filesystem that is in a inconsistant state... normally.
Now, unlike traditional ufs and filesystems like ext2fs, the FFS filesystem does not write data and metadata asynchroneously, so the inconsistancy between those two is extremely unlikely.
That said, a production quality journalling filesystem would be nice to have
I'd rather want to have FFS2 snapshop functionality to go with that tho.
> RPM hell only existed on distros that used RPM and even then it has been fixed for years with tools like urpmi, up2date and yum.
Last time I checked RPM is part of the LSB but you are right here, it is not used by every distro, and not even part of "Linux" itself.