Slashdot Mirror
X.org X11 Server Release 6.8
kormoc writes "The developers of X.org have just release the long-desired version 6.8.0. This release brings real translucency and allows one to set values on different windows. Also, nifty drop shadows as well as XDamage, an extention that limits redrawing of windows to only the areas that were damaged. The Xcomposite extention is still not stable, but it works well for some people. Why not give it a shot?"
On the bandwidth requirement fromt? Frankly, I don't u'stand why we don't have a good windowing environment atleast half as good as Citrix so far. The X-Damage stuff could be the ticket though.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
How much is XDAMAGE changing the original X11 protocol on wire ?. I have beed using something called WierdX, which is deployed as a JNLP in our project's webserver . Do these new extensions change something fundamental or is it just not applicable for remote X11 ?.
Hmm.. I just wish X11 would use my Video card instead of hogging CPU for those purty gradients and translucent windows.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Don't forget that this improves much more then just adding real tranpsarencies!
X is a networking protocol not a gui!
Stuff like XDamage makes it easier to use over slower connections, for example.
The move to more and more extensions and reducing the monolythic nature of X is great. But it's slow and a evolutionary manner. But as you get more and more modular, stability will increase as will speed of developement. Each section can make changes and not worry about the impact on other parts of the X server.
Unlike the monolythic model of lumping everything into Xlibs and making it difficult to program for and adding new features while retiring obsolete ones.
Look forward to things like pure OpenGL enviroment! Now you have to have 2 drivers for every 1 video card... one for 2-d and one for 3-d.
Currently each application must deal with 3-dness independantly of each other. They must deal with the hardware independantly. Does Quake3 work over a network? No! But it can if they move everything to the X server. Each window then would automaticly be hardware accelerated, even if it was originally designed for the old way of doing things. Windows and items can be 3-d straight from the desktop.
That and dozens of other improvements are coming. This XDamage and Composite stuff is just laying the groundwork for more stuff, more progress.
Anyone know when this will get released via yum repositories or is there a repository that has more current stuff for Fedora?
That's of zero use on a 2D screen! Close one eye. Spot the difference? Nope, me neither.
Second, without drop shadows, it is really easy to see which window has focus:
Your URL screwed up. Try this. I disagree with the point that drop shadow interferes with focus. Right now, my focussed window has a *deeper* dropshadow than all the others, giving the illusion that it is actually 'closer', not to mention the outlining, title bar colouring, etc, etc
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
For instance, where did they get this kicker bar:_ lynucs_1759409500411796a9ba106_1.jpg
http://img38.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img38&image=screen
Also, will drop shadows and tranlucency work with any windows manager (i.e. XFCE4), or do I have to be running Gnome/KDE?
Could somebody clarify it all ?
There's http://xfree.org and there's http://x.org . What's the difference between both ? And about the version numbers ? What do they stand for ? I have X11R6, v. 4.3 or something like that installed on my computer, and now they announce X version 6.8.0 ?! What does the 6 mean ? The 11 ? The 6.8.0 ? (And where the hell does the X come from ?)
Thanks in advance !
Future enhancements to various window managers and applications should take advantage of these new X features. (xcompmgr and transset are clumsy utilities intended only for proof-of-concept.) For example, KDE's feature plan notes that true transparency has already been implemented in Konsole.
Runs shadows/transparency smoothly:
GeForce FX 5900
Athlon XP 2000+
--Colin
Check out the X.org 6.8 Screenshots at LinuxReviews, showing off the new real transparency and drop shadow technology. These things may not increase your shareholder value, but it will allow you to impress people in a big way.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
When will we see fully improved network/remote access?
"Fully improved"? Please explain what you want in English. You appear to be using English words, but when you put them together, they make no sense.
When will we see some innovation instead of eye candy? Why does something have to be invented on OSX or Windows instead of pioneered on linux?
Since when do Microsoft invent stuff?
Why not work on something to compete against microsofts new gui/api interffaces based upon 3d rendering instead of pixel rendering?
Project Looking Glass. And, to answer your question "why not", because input and output is still 2D, so a 3D GUI is much more awkward to use than current GUIs.
I found it slightly frustrating that no one has created an APT repository for any x.org release that I can find. I know I could do it, but I have neither the resources or energy to actually figure out how to make up that rather... impressive package.
--- My novel, The Mummy's Girl is now for sa
Windows alpha support is basically "Make this window sorta transparent". The Windows desktop isn't actually composited: only when a translucent window is over another window is the contents of that window buffered. The rest of the time you're still in flicker-land.
I guess back in 2001 when XP was released average machine didn't have enough RAM to make it doable. Many perhaps still don't, but nonetheless Windows is last in the composited desktop arena.
Or you can use lbxproxy.
I use both of them to throw windows quite some distance - even across dial-up connections sometimes. Dial-ups are still slow, but not interminable. Cable or DSL, while not as snappy as local access, are still well within acceptable limits.
Oh, and Citrix sucks. The Citrix X server has got to be the worst one I've ever used. Constantly crashing, can't handle lots of applications like some versions of Mozilla. All in all, Citrix is a giant, stinking turd.
Man I can't wait for the autotooled X.org releases sometime in the future (debrix or whatever the branch name is called).
Building this beast is a trip down memory lane to the bad old days. Half way trough it bombs out on me because it can't find bison (now there's a program I haven't yet needed this century). So you install the program and continue on with "make World". What follows is the longest "clean" operation I've ever seen. Forget about just picking up compiling where it left. You're better of deleting the whole tree and unpacking the sources again, trust me, you'll save time.
Imake was a piece of shit when it was new and unsuprisingly it still holds true in 2004. However if it wasn't for X.org and Freedesktop I bet we'd still be compiling XFree86 5.0 with this pos a few years from now, at least someone at X.org is working on moving to the autotools for the next release.
It's like deja vu all over again.
People fail to realize that a lot of this work has been going on for years. I mean, sure we are making significant progress, but Keith has been investigating a possible "X translucency extension" since a paper he wrote in 2000 demonstrating its feasibility. Remember that because of his grand ideas and the fact that he wasn't sharing information with the incompetent XF86 board of directors, he was exiled from the group.
So these extensions didn't happen in the last 9 months. They have been brewing for a while and are a lot further along than you might think. There is a ways to go, and Keith said that we are going halfway there on xserver (I think he means that we have opengl rendering and other backend tweaks to do in the future). But X is definitely getting a facelift.
No, you're wrong on two fronts. First, the virus is working correctly by wrecking the machine, so my original response doesn't apply. Second, I didn't accept the virus, it was surrupticiously installed on my computer.
Stabbing me with a knife isn't the same as having a table of them and saying I can have one if I choose.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
When will we see some innovation instead of eye candy? Why does something have to be invented on OSX or Windows instead of pioneered on linux?
Because for the most part, that is not, and will probably never be, the way Linux development has worked. UNIX, yes, but Linux, traditionally not.
Now, before you put gasoline underwear on me and get ready to strike a match, hear me out. For the most part, Linux has been an environment where the best ideas from surrounding computing environments have been taken, sythesized, sifted, reviewed, and eventually had the creme-de-la-creme added to the mix. It's like making chocolate chip cookies but you've reviewed every chocolate chip and grain of flour prior to inclusion.
Now, this being said, has nothing been invented on Linux, is it all a facsimile? Of course not -- lots of apps exist in Linux that are unique. However, think about how music is composed nowadays. Most music written is a combination of theory, heritage, culture, and style. There's nothing really groundbreaking about it; no one is out making music from the sound of tomatoes rotting. However, the music is still new -- it's just another rendering of the general mish-mash.
Hence is Linux and Linux development. It doesn't always have to follow a pioneering stance; indeed, it rarely has. Nor is there a need to start now. I think in a lot of ways, the community does better if it takes the best of the already-field-tested and manipulates that into a successful product. Let the others take the heat and trials of something new and potentially groundbreaking (MS Bob, anyone?) and let us reap the goods.
Blog,Twitter
Actually, OpenGL can be set to output a set of "simple" drawing commands instead of drawing to a display context, that can be converted to pretty much any required output format like PostScript. So theoretically, it's easy to create high-resolution output from any OGL surface.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
The XFree86 website doesn't really reflect these issues either; if they are still working, nobody cares.
There is still activity on the mailing list
Not this release, but one of the ideas for X11R7 is to move everything from /usr/X11R6/* to /usr/* where it belongs.
"I have a Windows XP box on my desk right now; the only drop shadows I see are under the icon text."
Try opening up a menu sometime. While I agree that the XP shadows aren't as pretty, there are 3rd party applications that can create the "pretty" drop shadows. The layered window support in Windows since Windows 2000 allows per-pixel alpha to be specified for windows. With the proper graphics drivers, it's even hardware accelerated.
You obviously have no clue about what modules are, and what the alternative (spaghetti code) is.
"Modular" is an overloaded word, even in the field of software programming.
There is "modular vs spagetti" (a), yes. But there's also "modular vs monolithic" (b). The latter factor isn't involved so much with how the code interacts, but how it's distributed. In a non-modular, monolithic program, the source code is all in 1 big directory tree, and any person acquiring a copy of the code will be pretty assured to have gotten a self-consistent version. Whereas with modules there is a possibility that the code will be distributed separately, creating the opportunity for version mismatch errors impossible with a self-contained, monolithic codebase.
Think about the problems one can cross trying to compile software like Ephiphany, which requires specifically correct versions of mozilla, gnome, gtk2, pango, fribidi, glibc, and gcc. Any one of those being off could sabotage the build process.
One might argue that that with good modular design, interfaces will be stable and precise version matchup won't be important... but that presupposes "goodness" beyond what modularity can guarantee.