Slashdot Mirror


X.Org 6.8.2 is Out

ertz writes "The X.Org Foundation today announced the fourth release of the X Window System since the formation of the Foundation in January of 2004. The new X.Org release, called X Window System Version 11, Release 6.8.2 (X11R6.8.2) builds on the work of X.org X11R6.8.0 and X11R6.8.1 released in 2004. X11R6.8.2 combines the latest developments from many people and companies working with the X Window System and an open X.Org Foundation Release Team. All Official X.Org Releases are available for download from the ftp site and at mirror-sites world-wide."

450 comments

  1. So is Xfree86 dead? by glrotate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it being actively maintained or developed?

    1. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe it's still being developed, but most distributions are no longer packaging it.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    2. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Is it being actively maintained or developed?

      Well, if nothing has changed since the fork, the answer is probably: ``Not really.'' Wasn't the glacial pace and control-freak policies of Xfree the reason for the fork in the first place?

    3. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, it's dead. Netcraft confirms it.

    4. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by eatjello · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not dead, just forked. xfree86 is still in active development, but is currently under a feature freeze so they can concentrate on cleaning up the code (something xfree very much needs).

    5. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by iabervon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is being maintained and developed as actively as it ever was, which is to say that there's a first release candidate for the first version after the split ready now. Whether that counts as "active" or not depends on your point of view.

    6. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like "dead cat bounce" to me

    7. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by DickBreath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So is Xfree86 dead?

      Yes, according to NetCraft.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    8. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative
      X.org was largely formed because the people who most actively wanted to contribute to XFree86 weren't allowed to. Honestly, I don't think that there's really any left who could or would want to actively continue XFree86. On the other hand, X.org is being sponsored by HP, Sun, and IBM, and has representatives from SUSE, HP, Sun, and Red Hat on its board of directors.

      No, the real question is whether anyone qualified to continue X development is still sticking with XFree86. From what I can see, the answer is no.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Initially, the main rationale behind X.org was license issues with Xfree86 - which, apparently, was not all that "free". But because many have quickly switched to X.org, I'm not sure Xfree86 has still a future. I don't know. Anyway, it seems to still be maintained: see http://xfree86.org/.

    10. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it being actively maintained or developed?

      If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it...?

    11. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "main rationale" is too strong.
      The license was the straw that broke the horses back.

    12. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by nofx_3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't the glacial pace and control-freak policies of Xfree the reason for the fork in the first place?

      Actually IIRC much of the reason for the fork was due to a license change that many groups/people thought was too restrictive and incompatible with the popular OSS licencies (GPL/BSD/APACHE etc...)

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    13. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was the direct reason. but everyone was looking for a reason for some time...

    14. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually IIRC much of the reason for the fork was due to a license change that many groups/people thought was too restrictive and incompatible with the popular OSS licencies (GPL/BSD/APACHE etc...)

      I remember that, and I agree it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I also recall that there had been long-standing, wide-spread dissatisfaction with the pace of development and the access to the process.

      I was exaggerating when I said that Xfree isn't being developed; it still seems to be lumbering along at about the same old pace. I think that the pace at which x.org is moving will have nearly as much to do with its success as the new, improved (actually, same old?) license.

    15. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by niko9 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, X.org is being sponsored by HP, Sun, and IBM, and has representatives from SUSE, HP, Sun, and Red Hat on its board of directors.

      I didn't know it was sponsored by these big corporations. How does one get them to donate resources to the development of open source 3d hardware ala Open Graphics Project??

      Are they aware of the need for this type of hardware in order for Linux to be competitive on the desktop?

    16. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

      Thats's the official reason. But if xfree86 had been a healthy and active project, I doubt we would have seen the fork. After all, their new license is still "Free" according to the FSF.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    17. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      The mod who modded parent informative must be uninformed, on crack, or have an odd sense of humor, as XFree is neither BSD, nor has Netcraft confirmed its death...

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    18. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by lakerdonald · · Score: 1

      Why would anybody care if it is dead? XFree86 is subpar in comparison with Xorg, which has a huge development community, with very frequent updates/patches.

    19. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it...?

      .. does the other trees laugh ?

    20. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by eschasi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One could get contributions by demonstrating that there was an actual need. Thus far, it appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the developers. IMHO it would be much more effective approach for HP, Sun, et al to approach the card and chip vendors and twist their arms to release better specs and drivers under a mutually acceptable open source license. The end result would be much better cards for the $ than what we're likely to get from OGP.

    21. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Then it obviously wasn't a tree.

    22. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Are they aware of the need for this type of hardware in order for Linux to be competitive on the desktop?

      These companies market Linux to businesses, who have no need for amazing 3D effects, eye candy, and high FPS performance. They have no incentive to contribute to a need only the home, mostly gamer market has.

    23. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In some alternate universe where the only use for accelerated 3d was gaming, your post would make tons of sense.

      Here in the real world, hardware accelerated 3d is an important capibility for everything from CAD to basic 2d desktop rendering.

      The requirement for 3d hardware acceleration for general usage applications is becoming more and more widespread. Already features that were only avaiable in high-end 3d cards in 1995 are now required to get a reasonable user experiance out of both Windows XP and Mac OS X - I wouldn't assume that modern Open Source desktop environments won't use the same techniques to keep up.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    24. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sort of see the new license as a kind of "power grab" on the part of the status quo XFree86 people. They wanted the people who were trying to move X forward to know: "This is XFree86, and we call the shots."

      Obviously, it didn't work. I found it quite amusing in 2003 or so when they put up a distro page to brag about who was using the post-license-change XF86. That page has grown since, but when it was first erected, it read: "2 linux dists I've never heard of, plus Slackware."

      Contrast that to before, when they didn't bother listing who used XF86, because the list was so all-encompassing. Now, they feel the desperate need to remind us, "yes, people are still using XFree86."

      I remember slackware and netbsd were the first "big" guys to use the new XF86. I see freebsd has joined the likes. I think it's a mistake. I'm glad that openbsd guys still have a concience, and of course the Linux people realize that by abandoning XF86, they can get all the bleeding edge desktop enhancements.

    25. Re:So is Xfree86 dead? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      I remember that, and I agree it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I also recall that there had been long-standing, wide-spread dissatisfaction with the pace of development and the access to the process.


      I have said it before, and I'll say it again: I became convinced that Xfree needs to die slow and horrible death when they kicked out Keith Packard. Now, KP is THE guy who keeps on driving X (Xfree and then X.org) forward. He was the one who came up with the RENDER-extension and hos of other goodies. Then Xfree kicked him out. David Wexelblat (one of the founders of Xfree and back then still a member of the core-team) was flaming Keith. And while he was flaming, he mentioned that "I don't hack Xfree anymore. I don't even use it, I use Windows these days. What I do is that I lurk in the mailinglist".

      My jaw dropped when I read that. They were kicking Keith Packard, the greatest thing to happen to X/Xfree, out, while useless deadbeat like David Wexelblat was member of the core team. Keith had done ALOT for Xfree, David had done nothing in years (apart from lurking in the mailinglist). After I read that, I became convinced that sooner Xfree dies, the better.

      I'm not shedding any tears for Xfree. It could have been great, really great. But it turned in to ivory-tower organisation that wasn't REALLY interested in driving things forward. The ones that did want to shake things up, were kicked out. So long Xfree, and thanks for all the fish!
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  2. Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone in the know know why Debian is sticking to a fork of the old XFree code, and not moving to x.org like other distros?

    1. Re:Debian? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Debian is very conservative in upgrades. I understand that it is why Debian is very stable too. They (Debian) wait for the early adopters (Mandrake et al...) to see and iron out the bugs. Why are you anonymous?

    2. Re:Debian? by node+3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone in the know know why Debian is sticking to a fork of the old XFree code, and not moving to x.org like other distros?

      Because it's not sticking to a fork of the old XFree86 code, and it is moving to X.Org, like other distros.

    3. Re:Debian? by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 0, Troll

      Moving isn't the same as having moved.

      Debian will move to Xorg the day Duke Nukem Forever is released.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    4. Re:Debian? by beattie · · Score: 1

      Same reason they dont adopt other software when it's new. Stability.

      Though it sort of doesnt make sense. I mean how long did it take for them to get KDE3 into the "unstable" branch? Months. And that branch is meant to be as it's name implies, unstable.

    5. Re:Debian? by abrotman · · Score: 1

      http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xsf/XFree86/trunk/de bian/local/FAQ.xhtml#debianplans

      This explains some of what is going on with debian. Sarge(when released) will not have X.org packages.

    6. Re:Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the original poster, but I don't post logged in much anymore (once in the past year) because it's a much greater challenge to get modded up and I don't really care to be notified when I get responses.

    7. Re:Debian? by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes. Many peeople do.

      http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xsf/XFree86/trunk/ de bian/local/FAQ.xhtml#debianplans

      And now you know also.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    8. Re:Debian? by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Funny

      Debian will move to Xorg the day Duke Nukem Forever is released.

      I see you've been playing with the Duke Nukem beta as well.

      The experimental version of Debian that will be running xorg REQUIRES Duke Nukem Forever to boot. It runs as a client process, accessible by shooting the bouncer at the alien-infested oyster bar (from the opening screen take 2 lefts, a right, a left, and straight on three blocks. It'll be on your right.) Killing the bouncer will fork off a process that boostraps the new Debian, from which point you can fire up xorg either using startx or by defaulting to runlevel 5.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    9. Re:Debian? by kmartshopper · · Score: 1

      I thought I read somewhere that they were waiting for developers to clean up composite and Chinese character support... I was wondering the same thing because I wanted to upgrade my sid installs to Xorg... I ended up switching over to the ubuntu apt repositories *only* for the Xorg packages and then switching back to the debian repositories for everything else.

    10. Re:Debian? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it's not sticking to a fork of the old XFree86 code, and it is moving to X.Org, like other distros.

      I think many of us are wondering when x.org will be added to Debian unstable. It's nowhere in the package lists for stable, testing or unstable.

      I can't find any recent news regarding X.org for Debian on Debian.org, or in the FAQ. I see some discussion and debate about 7 months ago, but many things have changed since then.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    11. Re:Debian? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Debian is very conservative in upgrades. I understand that it is why Debian is very stable too.

      But isn't that why we have Stable, Testing and Unstable? "Stable" should be conservative in upgrades, Testing and Unstable are for incorporating new software into the future products?

      Maybe they are just way more convservative then I realized :)

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    12. Re:Debian? by sewagemaster · · Score: 1



      Here are some updates regarding X.org on Debian. Apparently it'll not be available for Sarge either. You can read about it in Daniel Stone's blog and Erich Schubert's here and here.

      I guess now that they've fixed a lot of bugs with radeon drivers in the new X.org release, things seem to be looking good in that direction.

    13. Re:Debian? by Dalroth · · Score: 1

      All reasons why I moved from Debian back to Fedora.

    14. Re:Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian will move to Xorg the day Duke Nukem Forever is released.

      Sweet! Two new things in one day!

      I'll have to knock off work early to give both the attention they deserve...

    15. Re:Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am just kidding. Or am I ?

      No. You are schizophrenic, and so are you.

    16. Re:Debian? by tulare · · Score: 1

      Heh. I've always loved using Debian - it's like a time machine back to Linux as it was about three and a half years ago. 2.2 kernel? Love it! KDE 1.x? Gotta have it! Now, if I could only remember how to get stateful packet inspection working in ipchains...

      I'm sure I'll be flamed to a crisp by some debianers over that obvious exaggeration, but after the experience I've had in places like #debian and the mailinglists, I really don't much care. In a way, deb is a great fit for xfree86, licensing issues aside. Same elitist attitude and brusque response to anyone daring to suggest an improvement.

      --
      political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
    17. Re:Debian? by algae · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, if you don't want to download the latest bleeding-edge Debian just to try out X.org, you can always grab a tarball of Duke Nukem Forever off of Freshmeat. After that's installed, X.org goes in pretty easily.

      ;)

      --
      Causation can cause correlation
    18. Re:Debian? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      See here for info on why it's not in unstable.

      Basically, it's just like others have said - they're waiting on sarge to be released. But this is straight from the horses' mouth, so to speak.

      It's changed a bit from what it used to be - namely, after sarge being released they were going to wait until the modular version of X was released. They've changed that to say they'll be moving to the monolithic tree and gradually going modular (with a couple exceptions that are modular already in debian).

      Note that if you hunt around, they are working on the X.org packaging and testing - it's not in the main repositories, but you can get the beta stuff now if you look for it. Might be something to try on a spare workstation.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    19. Re:Debian? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Debian's X maintainers had two factors to consider when discussing the move to x.org. There is an impending release of the stable branch and x.org's future code base is migrating to an autotooled build system. It seemed likely that porting the current x.org "under" everything they've already wrapped around their last xfree snapshot would delay the release of Sarge until the autotooled x.org would be "just around the corner". So they could either rush two significant changes, or wait and do one major one after Sarge is out the door. In other words, it's logistics. X.org actually is already being worked on by a Debian maintainer, but it's the non-monolithic code that will be packaged in a more granular fashion.

    20. Re:Debian? by devilkin · · Score: 1

      From #debian on freenode:

      dpkg: xorg is an alternative X implementation (fork of XFree86 4.4RC2) from X.Org, current release is X11R6.8. It won't be packaged for Debian until after Sarge release. See http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xsf/XFree86/trunk/de bian/local/FAQ.xhtml#debianplans for more information. Ask me about 'get xorg' for unofficial xorg debs.

      dpkg: [get xorg] Xorg is NOT SUPPORTED HERE. http://incubator.vislab.usyd.edu.au/roller/page/St eve/20040909 - but remember: YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN. Xorg is unusably slow with transparency enabled. Don't bother.

    21. Re:Debian? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      But this is straight from the horses' mouth, so to speak.

      Well, sorta. It's not on debian.org, debian.org doesn't link to the deadbeast.net document, and I have no idea who deadbeast.net is or why I should trust them.

      If this was in the FAQ on Debian.org, I think less people would be confused. I'll make a suggestion to them :)

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    22. Re:Debian? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because Debian operates in a temporal bubble displaced from the
      rest of the time-space continuum by 2-3 years.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    23. Re:Debian? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Ack, my bad, I should check my email more often for when people reply to my messages.

      Debian doesn't host homepages for package projects. Most of the time, you don't need them - most packages are just one developer, and the package pages on debian supply the minimal amount of information to submit bug reports and whatnot.

      X is a huge project though, and this is the web site of the "X Strike Force" - i.e. the guys who maintain the X packages for debian.

      You can get to it from debian's site by clicking 'people', scrolling WAY down to Branden Robinson, and clicking on the link to his homepage. You might remember him being mentioned on slashdot when he went up for debian maintainer.

      Anyway, it's legit, so I'd say 'straight from the horse's mouth' is pretty accurate. Would be nice if the package page on debian had a link to it though.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  3. Ati Drivers by espergreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if Ati users will have to wait another 6 months to get 6.8.2 support.

    1. Re:Ati Drivers by MarcQuadra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.

      I also wonder when people with ATI card that are actually supported will realize it. My RADEON 9200 and 7500 get full 3D acceleration without the closed drivers.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    2. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, my 9600 doesn't. Damn them.

      Am I not right in thinking that neither ATI nor NVidia have opened their interfaces? If neither of the big manufacturers do, that rather limits our choices, doesn't it...

      NVidia's proprietary drivers do work properly, though, so that's alright.

    3. Re:Ati Drivers by elzurawka · · Score: 0

      i cant get my ATI working in debian with xfree86. I dont know why they cant make linux drivers like nvidia? It so much of a process....installing a bunch of packages, configure lots of files...haha...so much stuff you can screw up. Nvidia wins when it comes to linux.

      --
      -EL
    4. Re:Ati Drivers by arose · · Score: 1

      Not full, I had to get a GeForce to replace my RADEON 7000 because the maximum point size was 1 and that made Wings 3D very difficult. Notify me if they ever fix that.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    5. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You try running a modified KERNEL, Nvidia still refuses to use the DRI interface to the card, which makes kernel debugging IMPOSSIBLE, also it makes the drives simply fail on non-standard kernels......

    6. Re:Ati Drivers by elzurawka · · Score: 0

      how did u get your ati 9200 working? Ne link i should know about? Do u wana e-mail me some instructions? haha

      --
      -EL
    7. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.>>

      I wonder when some Linux users will stop being so arrogant. Many people come to Linux AFTER they have purchased an ATI card with a desktop or notebook.

      "Switch to Linux it's better."
      "Okay. Reformat hard drive, install, configure. Hey, i can't get my ATI card to work."
      "You are so stupid. Why didn't you buy a card that works with Linux?"

    8. Re:Ati Drivers by smittyoneeach · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Possibly you can name a good 802.11g card with WEP support.
      Trying to get my kernel to compile in the right support for Gentoo 2004.3 has been an ordeal.
      I've got the firmware and everything working under the live CD.
      This page has a note that's kinda funny:
      7.c. Default: Manual Configuration
      Introduction.
      Manually configuring a kernel is often seen as the most difficult procedure a Linux user ever has to perform. Nothing is less true -- after configuring a couple of kernels you don't even remember that it was difficult ;)
      I assure you, after I've proffered the correct burnt offerings to appease the kernel gods, I shall never view the procedure as trivial.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    9. Re:Ati Drivers by Wiz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is off-topic, but....

      Erm, why don't you use 7.d instead where the whole process is basically automated? Run genkernel --menuconfig all if you wish to tweak which modules are available.

      If all else fails, use ndiswrapper. It works fine for me.

    10. Re:Ati Drivers by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Even my IGP mobile athlon works perfectly (w/ accel) in 6.8.1 without screwing with anything or getting special drivers.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    11. Re:Ati Drivers by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      the netgear cards are supported via mad-wifi (emerge search mad-wifi). The don't get turboG (2 bonded 802.11g bands), but they do get full g speeds of 54Mbps.

      The mad wifi drivers are well supported by the gentoo users' forum, too. Search there for mad-wifi and you should find some good info on setup for multiple environments and the like.

      Easiest way to get up and running with manually configuring a kernel is to run genkernel, and then running make menuconfig. Genkernel gives you a basic set of stuff/options, and then notes what modules are loaded in memory and uses to those to ensure that the resultant kernel will boot the box.

      Once in menuconfig, you'll find that each kernel option has some descriptive help-text. Well, a lot of them do, and they tend to include statements like "if you don't know, choose Y".

      It takes a while to go through it all, especially if you've not done it before (took me about 2 hours the first time to go through it all), but if you sit down and get a feel for the structure of the options in the menu, it's a lot easier later. Especially when you need to turn on some option (although if you know the option name, then 'vi /usr/src/linux/.config' is the best way to do it).

    12. Re:Ati Drivers by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      My radeon 9500Pro, 9800Pro and mobile get full acceleration with the closed drivers.

      Although the pace of driver releases suck the 9500Pro has been the best card I have ever owned. I bought it 2.5 years ago for $180, and it still plays doom3, ut2004 and quake3 in 1024x768 with all options maxed. Some games run at 1152 with no problems. I have personally never had a card that lasted so long or was as dependable.

      Having said that, my next card will be an nvidia as I like to upgrade X faster than ATI can release drivers =)

      Nvidia at the time I bought my 9500, did not have a competing card. But they have made up a lot of ground since then. I think my 9500 though has at least a year left in it.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    13. Re:Ati Drivers by sco_is_for_babies · · Score: 1

      sure it is supported but is it supported well? The answer is no. ATI's 3D Linux performance is much worse than a Windows-comparable nvidia card. my 9500 Pro can barely handle bzflag with all the eye-candy off in linux. In windows it was smooth as silk. A new 6600GT solved that problem.

    14. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To make your post a little more useful, would you post a list of cards that DO have published interfaces? Make it easy for people to do the right thing, and they'll do it.

    15. Re:Ati Drivers by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. Many Linux enthusiasts get a little over zealous and asshole like towards the newbs. But the other guy has a point too, in that the whole reason to use Linux (or BSD) is because it is a free (as in freedom), open source operating system. Unfortunately neither ATI nor NVidia do the best jobs of opening up their code...but at least nVidia has better drivers for Linux. Windows doesn't have good driver support because of Microsoft, they have good drivers because the vendors actually support them. Alternative Open Hardware is coming though ;)

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    16. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "????"

      Profit

    17. Re:Ati Drivers by xoboots · · Score: 1

      Those are good points. Of course, this could be mitigated if Linux had a first class binary-level driver model (especially for graphics adapters). Even though that still means that open source developers couldn't fix/enhance the drivers, at least they would be able to be independantly verified (and certified) to conform to the interfaces. Microsoft tackled that problem with Windows long ago and it has paid off for them. Even now MS continues to improve its binary driver module. Of course having source code is always preferable but not having the source shouldn't affect interoperation or usability. Indeed, even if sources were always available it would still be a good idea to have standardized driver model (something akin to SNAP, perhaps).

    18. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for reasonable values of "basically"
      >genkernel all
      didn't manage to compile in the PCMCIA drivers.
      not a flame, though--this is certainly a good education!

    19. Re:Ati Drivers by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      I agree that there needs to be a better driver model in the kernel...you shouldn't have to reconfigure and recompile your kernel to add the nvidia driver to it...but, I'd still rather the source be both open and available...then again I use Gentoo.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    20. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To include stuff that works right under the prism54 driver?
      Is there a table anywhere showing:
      card model||chip||kernel||driver name||make menuconfig switch
      Beyond that, an easy anaconda report on WTF my existing hardware, and I think we'd have this kernel configuration goat-rope all tied down...

    21. Re:Ati Drivers by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.

      When nVidia starts making really sucky ATI-quality drivers.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    22. Re:Ati Drivers by xoboots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.
      "

      Can you suggest an affordable, modern, consumer grade performance video card that meets this criteria? No you can't because there aren't any and you know it.

    23. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grep the config for the relevent defines. sed e s/=N/=M/. make oldconfig && make dep && make modules && make modules_install.

      Granted, make dep, building and installing modules is about half the kernel compile time, but that means I just saved you half the time. If you're really ambitious, you can delve into the kernel tree and hand-compile the few additional modules necessary.

    24. Re:Ati Drivers by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      Nvidia at the time I bought my 9500, did not have a competing card.

      Actually, the quality of ATI's Linux drivers is so horrid that even ATI's newest high-end cards can't compete with nVidia's previous-generation mid-range cards. If you read this article (it's a multi-page article...don't just read the first page), you'll see that cards as old as the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra and 5900 regularly outperform even the Radeon X800 Pro. The GeForce FX 5600XT is the only tested card that doesn't regularly outperform ATI's most powerful cards.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    25. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I agree that there needs to be a better driver model in the kernel...you shouldn't have to reconfigure and recompile your kernel to add the nvidia driver to it...

      Your wish is granted, you don't. You build the module to match your running kernel's sources, and you don't have to build the kernel at all.

    26. Re:Ati Drivers by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm a windows system admin who wanted to try Linux. Unfortunately, I use the latest hardware almost exclusively, and have found that to be the biggest hurdle to me attempting to try any version of Linux.

      I use an X800 video card, and have tried every thread pertaining to its installation that I could find, to no avail.

      Viscious circle I guess: Linux won't support a lot of the newest hardware, therefore many people do not try Linux, therefore, the Linux desktop share never increases, therefore, vendors do not release stable drivers for linux; rinse, repeat.

    27. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...then again I use Gentoo

      Is that bragging or a disclaimer?

    28. Re:Ati Drivers by legirons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I wonder if Ati users will have to wait another 6 months to get 6.8.2 support."

      ATI still have customers?!?

    29. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder when they whiney people will get off their asses and petition collectively to open up the interfaces then...

      Don't ask for the cutting edge product interfaces ask for the previous generation of the product instead...

    30. Re:Ati Drivers by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      I used MADWIFI in my old laptop, with two PC card adapters, which the laptop randomly fried. Thanks, HP/Compaq!

      While I absolutely love the job that the devs do on that project, in hindsight I'm not so confident in the Atheros hardware---and that's not because of the two incidents mentioned above. I have seen many reports that the Atheros has the shortest range of all the 802.11g chipsets. And it would be better if the project could be completely GPL, but because the Atheros radio is software-controlled, that part can't be GPL due to FCC standards.

      In my new laptop, I have a Ralink 2500-series card. They apparently have had Linux drivers for a while, and in December they released them under the GPL.

    31. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said; that's exactly my problem. *applauds*

    32. Re:Ati Drivers by orasio · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ubuntu can use your card.
      You can try the live version.

      About 3d, you need ATI to release a driver.
      They did publish specs in the past, so there were drivers up to 9200, but then they stopped.

      The problem you talk about is not so. There are some 3d video cards, and some winmodems that are not supported, but most hardware is.
      Proprietary drivers have problems of their own, too.
      I have some hardware that does run on the Linux kernel, and doesn't on newer versions of win (aimslabs tv tuner, samsung webcam) because hardware vendors died, or just don't wanna release new drivers.
      Linux drivers for most hardware are there, and are there forever.
      Win drivers are not time-proof.

      With respect to hardware support, Linux isn't behind win, for me, because I can run more hardware with Linux (including pctel winmodem, and Doom3 on my accelerated, shaderlicious nvidia FX5200 [don't laugh]), including old hardware that I don't have winXP drivers for.

      Of course, there is still lots of hardware that doesn't work with Linux, and won't, but of course the same can be said for Win. I'm not saying that changing from an already bought win machine to a gnu/linux one is easy, but it's very easy to buy a PC with all of its hardware supported. For example, most VIA motherboards have support for all their integrated peripherals, including winmodems, sound "cards", ethernet, 3d accel for S3 prosavage video chips.

    33. Re:Ati Drivers by Frankablu · · Score: 1

      I wonder when some Linux users will stop being so arrogant. Many people come to Linux AFTER they have purchased an ATI card with a desktop or notebook.

      And you think that Linux users can do.... what exactly?

    34. Re:Ati Drivers by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      If there aren't open source drivers that support hardware then we will never be independent of microsoft.

    35. Re:Ati Drivers by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I do see your point that a strength of Linux should be the ability to work with pretty much any commodity hardware without having to fall back to "don't buy this because it won't work under Linux".

      There is, however, a significant market segment that buys hardware specifically to run their software, as opposed to vice versa.

      These people will buy the hardware best suited for the job, rather than scrounging for any bits they can find on eBay. In this case, they won't choose ATi.

      Therefore I think it is going too far to say that anyone who slams ATi for their Linux support is arrogant, but in the same vein people should still work to support those unfortunate enough to have incompatible hardware. Maybe some kind of support group could be formed? Non-linux-compatible hardware-owners anonymous?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    36. Re:Ati Drivers by jbolden · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why would we want a first class binary-level driver model? So that we can have:

      compatibility problems
      very difficult API maintainence problems
      closed source drivers introducing OS bugs
      etc...

      Hell no. I'd much rather have worse hardware support than what we have on Windows. Probably at around 5% market share ATI is going to start to lose major vendor contracts (Dell, HP, etc...) because it will make their desktops not supportable fully under Linux. At that point ATI will take the driver issue seriously.

      Nvidia will be far ahead of them and this may be yet another advantage for Nvidia....

    37. Re:Ati Drivers by Kethinov · · Score: 1
      >> I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.>>

      I wonder when some Linux users will stop being so arrogant. Many people come to Linux AFTER they have purchased an ATI card with a desktop or notebook.

      "Switch to Linux it's better."
      "Okay. Reformat hard drive, install, configure. Hey, i can't get my ATI card to work."
      "You are so stupid. Why didn't you buy a card that works with Linux?"
      I can accept the fact that a newbie didn't know ATI driver support for Linux is absolute shit, but anyone who seriously wants to switch, should not bitch about it after the fact. They should just cut their losses and buy an NVIDIA card. Use the ATI card on a second box for a Wintendo or something.

      ATI's bad driver support does not negate the fact that Linux is better. And the arrogance you speak of is anger at ATI, not the clueless newbie.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    38. Re:Ati Drivers by xoboots · · Score: 2, Informative

      " If there aren't open source drivers that support hardware then we will never be independent of microsoft."

      How do you mean? If there are open specifications for driver iterfaces won't that accomplish the same goal? Think of it from the manufacturer's point of view. They already have to conform their drivers to Microsoft's interfaces. You don't just knock off drivers over night, either -- its a big job that is easy to get wrong. So they spend their time making sure that things work on Windows because that's what, 90% of their market? 80%? Its an important chunk of their revenue stream. But the beauty is this: as long as their driver is compatible with the interface, they get a lot of leverage -- they are gauranteed to work in at least the current platform release of windows (and sometimes several generations), their driver is loaded into the kernel (or at least protected space), they can expose controls via automatic hooks directly into existing UI features, and they can get their driver certified. All of which they can do without releasing source code (since they don't want to). That is a high level of operability, integration, compatability all while offering exceptional *trusted* low-level access to hardware. Finally, the consumer only needs to know that the hardware has been certified. Once they see that, they can be confident that they will be able to use that card on their platform with little or no fuss and that their platform will unlock all of the features of the hardware. There is no such equivalent in Linux.

      But why can't that be done in Linux? Maybe not in the kernel directly (it ought to be defined there, though, in my opinion) but perhaps in the X server or somewhere. Standard interfaces are just as important as source code and sometimes the need for a standard binary interface exceeds the need for source code. I'm all with you in the desire to have everything source based but even with that, a sophisticated binary interface for video drivers makes sense and is necessary. This is also true for other hardware drivers--audio comes to mind: why does my audigy stutter when I switch to another task on linux? It is butter on Windows so its not the hardware's fault. Its the binary interface and its integration into the kernel that makes the difference. There is no reason why Linux can't offer the same sort of services and experience the same sort of results. Its not a magic Microsoft thing -- hardware support on Linux isn't up to snuff mainly because Linux has yet to fully develop that infrastructure.

      Best of all, if Linux creates a model that can become a standard, Microsoft will finally get some competition in the driver model arena. That's how it locks-up and locks-in hardware manufacturers in the first place -- they have the infrastructure and they provide the specs. So having the source code alone won't help relieve us of Microsoft in this case. This is a case where binary interfaces are more important than vendor source code -- specifically because a standard mechanism needs to exist to allow many vendors to participate without becoming dependant on any one vendor's model. The key thing to remember is that we don't need source code to verify that a driver is correct and/or bug free as long as we have a standard interface we can test it against.

    39. Re:Ati Drivers by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      anyone who seriously wants to switch, should not bitch about it after the fact.

      What exactly constitutes "seriously wants to switch"? Why should a newbie commit to Linux before his old video card can even work? What you're asking for is bordering on religion.

      In this world, you tell somebody that Linux is better, they believe you, try it out, and then make a commitment.

      They should just cut their losses and buy an NVIDIA card.

      No, in many cases "cutting their losses" means ejecting the live Linux CD, and rebooting to Windows. You may know how well worth the new video card Linux is, but how do you expect somebody who hasn't even gotten to try it to know that? Linux evangelists also need to understand that people are far less desperate to run away from Windows XP or 2000 than they were from Windows 98.

      ATI's bad driver support does not negate the fact that Linux is better.

      Sure, but it can certainly hide that fact very well. A lot of the complaints about how unstable Windows is really refers to third-party drivers, but Microsoft takes most of the heat. Life isn't fair that way.

    40. Re:Ati Drivers by xoboots · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Why would we want a first class binary-level driver model? So that we can have:

      compatibility problems
      very difficult API maintainence problems
      closed source drivers introducing OS bugs
      etc..."

      That's precisely why it is needed. We already have compatiblity problems just because each vendor has to reinvent the wheel everytime around. The bugs issue is also a non-starter since with a standard interface you have something with which you can verify the operation of a driver. Even if vendors released source code, without a standard interface it becomes incumbent on the community to rewrite the driver to conformance so that's not really a win situation.

      NVidia may have leading support at this time (it was not always that way, recall) but they still aren't releasing their sources. You're just talking about reliance on a particular vendor because their drivers seem to work -- for now. So I don't really see the merit in your objection.

    41. Re:Ati Drivers by friedmud · · Score: 1

      This is absolute driblle.

      I've been rolling my own kernel for years now (even applying external patches that I want) and have never had a problem with the Nvidia drivers. (ok, so when the 2.6 kernel first came out you had to apply a patch to the nvidia modules to get it to work with the new kernel... but that was minor)

      They ship the drivers with the source code to their module interfaces... which get's compiled for your specific kernel when you install the drivers.

      People love to take a whack at Nvidia for not opening their drivers, but in reality they have opened them as much as possible (go read through the module source, there is a LOT that is open in there) - while still retaining their main algorithms in a binary only format. The fact of the matter is that Nvidia cards and drivers "just work".

      Friedmud

    42. Re:Ati Drivers by tommyth · · Score: 0

      Here's what you can do: Send me your incompatible X800, and I'll send you a 100% Linux compatible GeForce4 TI 4200. Of course I'm joking. I think though, your X800 is better suited for an operating system who's only good point is being able to play games.

    43. Re:Ati Drivers by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The X and the kernel have standard interfaces for modules / drivers. The problems in the case of the video card makers is that they won't use them.

      They could even do what panasonic did with its iSight type thing:
      -- they released an open source driver which connected directly to the kernel in a normal way
      -- they released a closed source extension which connected to the open source driver

      10 years ago there used to be a lot of problems with SCSI drives. At this point all the SCSI drivers support Linux with open source drivers which are fully integrated into the kernel and fully supportable. That's the model I want to follow.

    44. Re:Ati Drivers by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      Unfortuantely, not that I'm aware of. That's the main beef I have with Linux (and the hardware vendors). Drivers are based on what's actually in the device, and that's kinda kept hidden. It took me a while to figure out that I didn't have the prism chipset, but the Atheros chipset.

      But once I figured that out, the mad-wifi drivers for the atheros chipset worked great.

    45. Re:Ati Drivers by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      " Ubuntu can use your card.
      You can try the live version.

      About 3d, you need ATI to release a driver."

      ATI did release a driver for the X800. Its only officially supposed to work with Redhat or Suse.

      My X800 does work in any distrubution of Linux, but in VESA mode:( And that kinda defeats the purpose.

      In terms of compatibility with newer hardware... well, I can tell you this:

      I have tried 5 installations of various distr. of linux per year, and have NEVER had all my hardware work. In some cases, I had to manually configure various things to get it working, but in most cases, it just didn't work, period.

      Saying that Ubuntu supports the X800 is just plain wrong. Like I said, sure, it'll support it in VESA mode, but not in 3D mode. Thats my whole point. Thats like saying, sure, mandrake supports your new fire wire Video camera, but you can only transfer video at 9600 baud....

      My viscious circle still applies to anyone using the latest hardware. I agree its ATI's fault its not working in full 3D mode.. but if vendors refuse to change, at what point will Linux developers have to step up to break the cycle of "not supported, therefore users don't try it, since user base is small, vendors won't support it, repeat".

    46. Re:Ati Drivers by xoboots · · Score: 1

      I think I see what you are getting at and I don't disgree. But I wonder if I am talking about something at a different level of abstraction. For example, what is the standard module interface that defines the number of monitors attatched and how to interact with them? What is the standard interface that defines video hardware capabilities? Right now its a hodge podge spread out over different services in non-standard ways. Sure, I can define certain capabilities in my X config -- but here too we currently see vendor specific settings for capabilities. Further, what if I don't want to use X, what then? Without standard interfaces we see the same problem solved in different ways time and again. Worse, they are solved using vendor specific implementations. That's not cool.

      The point you make about panasonic is what I am getting at: the open source component defines a binary interface which the closed component communicates with. Why not define the open source part ourselves and let the vendors do the other part? After all, we don't want each vendor to have a different proprietary interface to implement the same capabilities, do we?

      AFAIK (and I admit the depth of my knowledge on these matters is already showing) the kernel module interfaces are fairly high-level abstract in that they deal with the problem of connecting code to the kernel in a general way. I'm suggesting we need some specific device level abstractions as well, that's all.

      That said, I realize that this isn't a magic brush that will somehow fix all the woes we face; as you say, vendors will have to support the interfaces for this to work. Failing that, it is obviously much to our common goal to rather have the source code in those cases so that we can fix their drivers for them. As far as SCSI, isn't todays support an outcome of the fact that the kernel developers eventually adopted a uniform interface to deal with SCSI devives that vendors could code against?

    47. Re:Ati Drivers by jbolden · · Score: 1

      OK this post I agree with in terms of strategy. It doesn't address the philosophy though. I don't want binary drivers to be "first class citizens" in the Linux world. I don't think its to our long term advantage for lots of reasons. That's in addition to legal problems (i.e take the Nvidia driver as an example which can't be GPLed and thus can't be distributed linked into the kernel....)

      As for SCSI they did define low level stuff (including example implementations) but the main thing was the hardware vendors released specs finally and ended up all using the same code. In the case of vide hardware the graphics card guys simply won't release the specs.

    48. Re:Ati Drivers by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Possibly you can name a good 802.11g card with WEP support.
      I have a dell d800 laptop that came with an intel pro2100. At first, it really sucked because I had to do all kinds of strange stuff with ndiswrapper. After a time, intel released their own driver(been running with this for more than 6 months). Now, it's the most reliable wireless device I own. It supports all of the advanced card features, I can even run kismet on it. Anyway, there's one.

      I assure you, after I've proffered the correct burnt offerings to appease the kernel gods
      Have you tried the gentoo forums? There are always people willing to help. Give me a jingle, send me a pim, the username is the same.

    49. Re:Ati Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a better supported video card (currently nvidia). Or then ask ATI for open specs/good drivers. But do not annoy X.Org developers.

    50. Re:Ati Drivers by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      I wonder when some Linux users will stop being so arrogant. Many people come to Linux AFTER they have purchased an ATI card with a desktop or notebook.


      I think Linux should officially qualify as sole licensee of the phrase "chicken and egg". Nearly every issue has the same problems, either it's "there's not enough Linux users / More would use it if you supported it" or "there is only closed source / it's because companies don't trust open source"

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    51. Re:Ati Drivers by Kethinov · · Score: 1
      What exactly constitutes "seriously wants to switch"? Why should a newbie commit to Linux before his old video card can even work?
      The cost of replacing the video card with one that is supported is marginal. If the newbie still didn't want to, he could always use Linux anyway with no (or poor) 3d support. If he can't handle buying a supported card or living without 3d, then he can petition ATI for better drivers.

      People who claim ATI is the single reason they're not using Linux are just using it as an excuse. If they were serious about switching, they'd just get an NVIDIA card, a supported ATI card (they do exist), or live without 3d. The choice is pretty clear cut. Linux supports some hardware and it doesn't support others. That's a fact of life in any OS be it Windows, *nix, or Mac.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    52. Re:Ati Drivers by orasio · · Score: 1

      Of course, I understand what you say about your card, I was just pointing out that "installing" your video card, is just making it work, not making it work with full functionality. You said it just didn't work. You lied. I said it did work. I lied. It works, but not as intended. It's ok for a dual boot system, not ok for a dedicated machine. Of course, if you wanted a win-free machine, what were you thinking buying ATI in the first place?

      Especially with opengl, there _is_ of course a problem with ATI.
      Anyway, I don't see the vicious circle you talk about anymore, because you can, for your next upgrade, buy an nvidia card, if you want to run it on linux, seamlessly. Or you can bitch and moan to ATI.
      But anyhow, you do have drivers for most of the oldest cards, and for half of the lastest ones, Ati, they did provide open source drivers, they just stopped doing it because of their marketing strategies. That has nothing to do with the "popularity of Linux", it's just a company screwing you over, and you buying from them.
      I wanted an ATI, but they chose not to have me as a customer. I chose to run blender and doom3 where they work nicer for me.

      A FX5200 costed a bit over 80usd ncluding taxes (it's not cheap, but it's ok, dollars are much cheaper right now in Uruguay) , but if I wanted to run doom3 on win I needed to buy Windows2000 or winxp, and that's too much of a price to pay for playing on an ATI instead of an nvidia.

      I understand that most people see this kind of hardware trouble as big trouble. I just say, ok, if you can't find a distro that supports your hardware, wait, and be wiser next time you buy hard.

    53. Re:Ati Drivers by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      The cost of replacing the video card with one that is supported is marginal.

      If our newbie cares about 3-D performance under Linux, then it's not unlikely that he spent good money on his ATI card. It's also not unlikely that he'll want a decent one to run under Linux.

      he could always use Linux anyway with no (or poor) 3d support. If he can't handle buying a supported card or living without 3d, then he can petition ATI for better drivers.

      Or he could continue using Windows. As I mentioned, people are not nearly as desperate to run from Windows XP and 2000.

    54. Re:Ati Drivers by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      That easily constitutes someone who is not serious about switching. Someone who is serious about switching would buy the compatible video card rather than settle for Windows.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    55. Re:Ati Drivers by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      OK. YOUR card is NOT supported for 3D. You're seeing software rendering on your 9500.

      Please read the driver info page for the radeon at:

      http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R6.8.2/doc/radeon .4 .html

      On my 7500, BZflag plays quite well with the eye candy turned on, though I prefer GLQuake.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    56. Re:Ati Drivers by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1
      SURE! from the release notes from xorg-6.8.2:



      R100
      Radeon 7200
      RV100
      Radeon 7000(VE), M6
      RS100
      Radeon IGP320(M)
      RV200
      Radeon 7500, M7, FireGL 7800
      RS200
      Radeon IGP330(M)/IGP340(M)
      RS250
      Radeon Mobility 7000 IGP
      R200
      Radeon 8500, 9100, FireGL 8800/8700
      RV250
      Radeon 9000PRO/9000, M9
      RS300
      Radeon 9100 IGP
      RS350
      Radeon 9200 IGP
      RV280
      Radeon 9200PRO/9200/9200SE, M9+
      R300
      Radeon 9700PRO/9700/9500PRO/9500/9600TX, FireGL X1/Z1 (2D only)
      R350
      Radeon 9800PRO/9800SE/9800, FireGL X2 (2D only)
      R360
      Radeon 9800XT (2d only)
      RV350
      Radeon 9600PRO/9600SE/9600, M10/M11, FireGL T2 (2D only)
      RV360
      Radeon 9600XT (2d only)
      RV370
      Radeon X300, M22 (2d only)
      RV380
      Radeon X600, M24 (2d only)
      R420
      Radeon X800 (2d only)
      R423
      Radeon X800 PCIE (2d only)



      Cards marked with 2D only will do 3D in software (read: exceptionally poorly)
      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    57. Re:Ati Drivers by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      I just bought video cards a few weeks ago. the RADEON 9200 series is fully-accelerated with open-source drivers, and it doesn't need a fan, which is awesome because my system is whisper-quiet now.

      It's also plenty fast for what I do with it, I'm only 2D for 99% of the time I'm on the machine anyway, and when I do play 3D games they're a year or two old, so they run fine.

      Go take a look.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    58. Re:Ati Drivers by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      How many "serious" switchers, by your definition of having actually replaced hardware before gaining substantial experience with Linux, have you ever met in your life?

    59. Re:Ati Drivers by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      We're oversimplifying the matter through debate. The switching process usually invovles some sort of dual booting process which allows the newbie to gradually wean himself from Windows as he discovers Linux alternatives to programs he uses in Windows. The final step in this case would be eventually buying a compatible video card so he can game from Linux.

      I only know one person who's switched from Windows to Linux cold turkey, but he already had an NVIDIA card. :)

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    60. Re:Ati Drivers by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      The switching process usually invovles some sort of dual booting process which allows the newbie to gradually wean himself from Windows as he discovers Linux alternatives to programs he uses in Windows.

      This is exactly the typical scenario I had in mind. We need to admit to ourselves that hardware incompatibility means that...

      The final step in this case would be eventually buying a compatible video card

      ...is still asking for a bit of a leap of faith from the potential switcher. It is a barrier that some will not be willing to cross, especially if it involves tossing one expensive video card to buy another. What I perceive of your position so far is that this says the switcher is not "serious", and presumably can be ignored. This is the attitude that I'm addressing. About the only stereotypical Linux advocate response I haven't heard so far is "well, the newbie can apt-get gcc and start writing a video driver". ;)

      If you want newbies to switch at all, the process needs to be as "casual" as possible. Requiring a level of "seriousness" simply means some will go back to Windows, satisfied that there is no alternative for them.

    61. Re:Ati Drivers by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      I wish it was that simple. All we can do really is petition ATI for better drivers. Otherwise the situation will never improve and switching will require a level of seriousness.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    62. Re:Ati Drivers by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      if by modified you mean you compiled it then bollocks (unless you enabled nvidia riva support in the kernel)

      if by modified you mean patched then bollocks (unless you mean patched so much it looks more like hurd or freebsd)

      i always compile my own kernel, and i use the nvidia driver with the gentoo-dev-sources, although i have in the past used the ck patchset instead

  4. Mostly stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It looks like its moslty a stability update than features:
    The X11R6.8.2 release is intended to be a stable bug fix release ("Maintenance update") for the X11R6.8.0 and X11R6.8.1 X11 releases of the Xorg Foundation, containing bug fixes, security updates and a small set of new features, which include the following:

    * ATI R100 video driver
    * ATI "radeon" video driver
    * ATI Rage128 video driver
    * CYGWIN infrastructure update
    * DMX Library updates
    * Intel i810 video driver
    * libXpm security update (CAN-2004-0914)
    * Mesa (OpenGL) update to release 6.2
    * Fixes to the pseudocolor emulation layer (currently only used by the Neomagic driver.)
    * "nv" (Nvidia) video driver
    * Postscript print driver
    * Xprint infrastructure update

    1. Re:Mostly stability by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So here's the important question: has the "nv" driver gained access to enough of the modern NVidia cards that I can stop using the binary-only driver to play Neverwinter Nights?

    2. Re:Mostly stability by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Not bloody likely.

      Seriously, the nv drivers suck at 3D largely because nvidia does not open their specs sufficiently. I, along with everyone else, would like them to, but personally, I think that's a ways out. They release a good driver though, and I am happy with it.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    3. Re:Mostly stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's Utah-GLX. It's based on the driver code nvidia released for their TNT cards in ancient times. Though you'd be bloody lucky if you get anything like a geforce 2 to work. Most people buy a radeon r200 (far better than gf2 anyway) for open source 3d. Or you can buy an r300 and help test the new driver. Avoid ATI proprietary crap.

    4. Re:Mostly stability by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We need open hardware

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    5. Re:Mostly stability by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      We need open hardware

      Go make some. You may have trouble getting the VC to build fabs, though. Information may want to be free, but rent still wants to be paid.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    6. Re:Mostly stability by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? Who needs fabs? Most companies designing chips don't actually manufacture them; they send them to contract manufacturers who do. With open hardware, you'd have to pay to have a batch of chips made, but it's far less than it'd cost to build a fab.

      Ever design circuit boards? I have. I tried making some by hand with rub-off stuff from Radio Shack and ferric chloride, and it was a PITA. Then I found www.custompcb.com in Malaysia which sent me two 4x5.5" boards for $26, including shipping. $26 is a lot cheaper than it would have cost me to set up my own photolithography and etching lab.

    7. Re:Mostly stability by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Open does not equal free. Open means they play fair with everyone else...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    8. Re:Mostly stability by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      You're cool dude. :) I'll have to check out that site. There are a few projects I've been wanting to build, but etching my own board has always been a hassle.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    9. Re:Mostly stability by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they only do double-sided boards, so BGA is out, unless you get your hands on an adapter daughter board (which usually run for > $500).

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    10. Re:Mostly stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this for circuit boards. http://www.fullnet.com/u/tomg/gooteepc.htm
      Works like a charm!

    11. Re:Mostly stability by notwrong · · Score: 1
      One cool way I was told about for etching a board is to print the mirror image on a laser printer and ironing the printout onto the copper side of the board. Here is a page describing the process and best materials in detail.

    12. Re:Mostly stability by gatzke · · Score: 1


      And the latest NV drivers play hell with Fedora Core 3. Like no display, Nvidia image locked up kind of hell.

      Supposedly it is a simple fix, but it has not worked for me yet.

      Ed

    13. Re:Mostly stability by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? How often do you need to use a BGA package for anything hobby-level, or even for many professional applications? If you're working with BGAs, you're probably also working with rather high-speed circuits, and will have very small traces on your board. You'll probably also want a 4-layer board at minimum.

      For an application like this, custompcb.com probably isn't a very good choice. Try something higher-end like 4pcb.com (Advanced Circuits). They can do 4-10 layer boards with 0.0049" trace widths. However, if you're just a hobbyist making a simple 1 or 2-layer thru-hole PCB, the American board houses just aren't at all competitive; they'll charge you at least $100 for a prototyping batch, and won't let you panelize. The Malaysian, Bulgarian, and Chinese places are much better for this market (olimex.com in Bulgaria is very popular among hobbyists as well). They may not have the quality and precision that the American places have, but most people don't need it, and don't need to pay the premium prices for it.

    14. Re:Mostly stability by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Which means somebody builds it cheaper and puts you out of business. Have you seen what nVidia and ATI pay their engineers? If they were in a simple commodity market, those engineering departments would be the first thing cut. In the realm of tangible goods, there is no business case to do R&D if you can free-ride on somebody else's and then undercut them on price.

      The only way around this would be for each new video card to be patented, and I have a feeling the open hardware advocates don't see that as a good alternative either.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    15. Re:Mostly stability by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I tried this one, long ago, with some kind of weird blue paper ("Toner Transfer System" was the brand name IIRC). It gave good results for the etching, but the big problem with home-made boards, IMO, is not the etching, but the drilling. Getting an accurate-enough drill press, and the right bits, is not easy. If you're making a bunch of boards that each have 50 or 100 holes, you're going to waste a lot of time drilling. With the offshore board houses, all that is done for you, and it's probably a good deal more accurate than you can be in your garage.

      Home-made boards are really cool and all, and if it still cost $100+ for a board or two, it'd definitely be worth it. But now that these offshore places have come on the scene, and you can get your boards for $26-50 (depending on size & qty), it's a lot harder to justify both the time and money expenditure of doing it yourself. Don't forget, to set yourself up for DIY PCBs, you need to buy bare copper boards (which aren't that cheap), etchant, carbide drill bits, and a suitable drill press. These startup costs will probably set you back more than 4 small batches of boards from custompcb, not counting the huge amount of time you'll have to spend. I'd rather spend that time designing the boards and getting the circuits working.

    16. Re:Mostly stability by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      If there were some sort of open 3D hardware consortium....ATI and NVidia could be members, and they could work together and make technilogical progress faster than just fighting each other. We would still need those same engineers working for those same companies to contribute to the project, except everyone benefits rather than just a few. It's a win win situation.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    17. Re:Mostly stability by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Wasn't that the Soviet Union's method of development? I don't recall many great technical innovations coming out of the design bureaus. Why is there a need to innovate if you can make money just selling the same old shit? Your quarterly stock profits will look better, and if an upstart does come out of the woodwork, they either will have to produce closed hardware or license the "open" tech from you. In either case, your superior manufacturing capability means that you'll squelch the new competitor, so no one will fund them to begin with.

      The only possible way around that would be to have the government fund the development of new tech, but how much in taxes do you think people want to pay for a better framerate in Doom 3?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    18. Re:Mostly stability by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      No...if it was communist, like you are implying it would be the only choice. It's just a standard, not a requirement. If someone could come up with something better, then it would take off and the standard would suffer...you just have to look at the standard itself as just another competitor. ...plus I seriously doubt both ATI and NVidia would just on board, lol :P

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    19. Re:Mostly stability by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that the Soviet Union's method of development? I don't recall many great technical innovations coming out of the design bureaus.

      Some Soviet Union Firsts:

      First human in space: Apr 12, 1961
      First daylong spaceflight: Aug 6, 1961
      First woman in space: Jun 6, 1963
      First multi-person spaceflight: Oct 12, 1964
      First spacewalk: Mar 18, 1965
      First photos from moons surface: Jan 31 1966
      First lunar satellite: Mar 31 1966
      First automatic space docking: Oct 27, 1967

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    20. Re:Mostly stability by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      How did they do with rocket engine design? Lack of innovation due the lack of reward for innovation led directly to the failure of the N-1 and with it the Soviet manned lunar program. One design bureau was granted a monopoly on rocket engines and he felt he only needed to design an engine good enough for an ICBM. Thus the fiasco of the N1 having something like 30 engines in its first stage as compared to the five in the Saturn V. The Soviet space program is actually a pretty damn good example of how lack of competition kills innovation.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  5. Debian by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish they'd release Sarge already so that Xorg will go into unstable.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    1. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Get Ubuntu instead. It's essentially a cleaned up version of Debian Sid and it includes X.org.

    2. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unstable xfree86 already has some backported stuff.

    3. Re:Debian by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Instead of wishing, go here and help it happen by fixing as many of the 93 release-critical bugs as you can. Once that number is low enough, Sarge will be released.

    4. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we're all computer programmers.

      "Switch to Linux it's better."
      "ok. boy that was lots of work but it's cool. Hey there's some new software coming out. I hope it comes soon."
      "Get off your ass and fix all the programming bugs, and you'll get it sooner stupid!"

    5. Re:Debian by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 1

      I love debian. Debian is an insanely stable linux distro. If my life depended on not having my system crash then debian stable would be one of the only ways to go (even debian unstable seems more stable than most OS's.) However if you want a distro that has all of the latest and greatest packages I would suggest going elsewhere. If one distro doesn't meet your needs try another -- that is one of the things that makes linux great. Maybe try gentoo or redhat or whatever. Again this is not a slam against debian. All the distros have different goals and are made for different people. I really wouldn't say one is better than the other; it is just that one may be better at a particular application than another might be. If your application involves having all of the latests packages then debian is not the best distro for you.

    6. Re:Debian by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      As opposed to Windows where all you can do is wait.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    7. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      The next version of Ubuntu(Hoary) will ship with X.org.
      The current version(Warty) ships with XFree86.

    8. Re:Debian by zootm · · Score: 1

      > Wrong.
      > The next version of Ubuntu(Hoary) will ship with X.org.
      > The current version(Warty) ships with XFree86.

      It's fairly easy to upgrade to the current development version of Hoary now, though, although it's marginally less stable, theoretically (a quite fantastic dependencies problem killed my gnome-panel for a while, for example).

    9. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Apart from this temporary x.org issue, debian unstable is sufficiently bleeding edge for me, and lots of other people. And it still has the largest collection of available packages.

    10. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Ubuntu and Canonical. They're lying through their teeth as they fork the Debian Project.

    11. Re:Debian by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 1

      That's great! You have found the right distro for you -- I would suggest that you use debian from now on then!!! Having lot's of linux distro's is a strength of linux, but it is also a double edged sword. One of the down sides is that we sometimes end up with flame wars because some people can't stand the fact that everyone doesn't use the same distro they do. I am actively trying to avoid that sort of thing right now.

    12. Re:Debian by donkstuff · · Score: 1

      I agree. I run ubuntu "hoary" (unstable), just for the xorg packages, but i would like to go back to vanilla debian unstable, because i prefer to start with the base system, and build it up just how i want it. Plus, by default, Ubuntu is too user friendly for me.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
      Paluminum.net
    13. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. You missed his point entirely.

      If you can't write code, you'll be waiting regardless. So why wait on an inferior product (linux) when the greatest operating system ever (Windows) is ripe for purchasing?

  6. Waht about xgl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Develoment has started on anew x server called xgl, whihc is opengl accelerated. When will wew see that supported in major distros?

    1. Re:Waht about xgl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post your mailing address and preferred keyboard type, and I will spearhead the initiative to take up a collection and buy it for you.

    2. Re:Waht about xgl? by labratuk · · Score: 1

      Probably never. xgl is just an experiment put together by one guy. Unless your future ideal platform is an X server running a cairo app running on glitz running on opengl running another virtual X server inside it, and then possibly another glx app inside that, this won't be the mainstream solution.

      Or of course you could forgo the uppermost X server and run it straight on a framebuffer of some kind, but that would require all vendors shipping linux GL drivers to completely rehaul their drivers and agree on another spec. And then the poor DRI guys would have to rethink things. And then will this be linux specific? Will it require a completely different interface for freebsd/openbsd/darwin? And you'd be throwing away all of xorg. What's that, ten years work? And that includes input drivers, keymaps, xinerama, font systems...

      Ah wait and how will xv work? Not all vendors have YUV conversion routines in their 3d engines.

      The freedesktop people need to do a bit more head scratching before they come up with a neat solution for the future. It's not as simple as 'wow xgl cool!'.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
  7. Why this matters: by RailGunner · · Score: 0, Redundant
    About this Release:

    The X11R6.8.2 release is intended to be a stable bug fix release ("Maintenance update") for the X11R6.8.0 and X11R6.8.1 X11 releases of the Xorg Foundation, containing bug fixes, security updates and a small set of new features, which include the following:

    * ATI R100 video driver
    * ATI "radeon" video driver
    * ATI Rage128 video driver
    * CYGWIN infrastructure update
    * DMX Library updates
    * Intel i810 video driver
    * libXpm security update (CAN-2004-0914)
    * Mesa (OpenGL) update to release 6.2
    * Fixes to the pseudocolor emulation layer (currently only used by the Neomagic driver.)
    * "nv" (Nvidia) video driver
    * Postscript print driver
    * Xprint infrastructure update

    Please refer to the X11R6.8.2 Release Notes at http://www.x.org/ for further details. The full list of changes between the initial X11R6.8.0 and this release can be found in the Changelog.

  8. Change log? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This announcement means nothing without a changelog

    1. Re:Change log? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to the X.org site. The changelog link is right at the top of their home page.

  9. version numbers by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Okay, what's with the crazy version numbers? Can we not have some universal version numbering system... where if more than say 10% of the API is updated then make it a major number change... I mean... how long has it been at version 6? Since 2001???

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I thought the same thing when I read the blurb. I know there's a method behind it with CVS and all, but, why not just call it xorg-6.8.2? Done. Drop the X11R6 already.

    2. Re:version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was R6 even when I started diving into Linux, somewhere around 1985, I think.

    3. Re:version numbers by CypherXero · · Score: 1

      Linux wasn't out in 1985. Maybe you're thinking of UNIX?

    4. Re:version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was thinking of X11R6 which has been out for around twenty years.

    5. Re:version numbers by iabervon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      May 16, 1994, actually. But they haven't removed anything from the API.

    6. Re:version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yhbt hand
    7. Re:version numbers by temojen · · Score: 2, Informative

      It implements the 6th revision of the 11th X-windowing system specification. Hence it's X11R6, but Version 11 of the X-Windowing system is the one that's a standard, so they can drop the 11. The result: revision 6. The 8.2 is the implementation version.

    8. Re:version numbers by Fenris+Ulf · · Score: 1

      X11R6 is the network protocol specification.

    9. Re:version numbers by CineK · · Score: 1

      I think that you should read something in wikipedia before using arguments about dropping anything.
      changing name would break naming scheme, which is currently clean and easy to understand. What if the protocol changes to version 12 ?

      --
      -- echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb31350717901017685 42287578439snlbxq'|dc
    10. Re:version numbers by timster · · Score: 1

      Yes, we know, but why include that in the product name? I bet X11R6 is older than half of Slashdot.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    11. Re:version numbers by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Maybe he's thinking of 1995.

      Marijuana's a hell of a drug.

    12. Re:version numbers by lcsjk · · Score: 1
      THe version numbers are based on the number of lines and bytes of code that had to be modified or added since the last revision, expressed as base 2 number. In this case 6.8.2 means (2^6)*(2^8)*(2^2). The reason it is always increasing is that developers are hesitant to keep releasing tidbits of code so they just wait until they have a little more than the previous time. THe only company that has violated that hs been Microsoft as they moved Word from 2 to 6. At that time they were not making money at the rate Bill wanted, so they started this deal that everyone should have to pay for the newer version. By jumping from 2 to 6, they were able to convince people that the old version should be discarded and only the new, highter priced version should be used. They also made it not backwards compatible so that users of the old version would not be able to tell if the new one was worth the money until after they had bought it and installed it. Microsoft also used base 10, since they have never had to deal with small numbers in order to correct previous mistakes.

      Now you know!

    13. Re:version numbers by AZPolarBear · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hence it's X11R6, but Version 11 of the X-Windowing system is the one that's a standard, so they can drop the 11.

      You must work in Sun's marketing department.

    14. Re:version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's stuff in my fridge older than half of Slashdot.

      Smarter, too.

    15. Re:version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'll just hit wikipedia every time I post. Riiiiight...

      As for the protocol changing to 12: how long has it been since it went from 10 to 11? No, I'm going to wikipedia to find out.

      Look at me! I'm posting without googling for it or browsing wikipedia! I'll feel so ALIVE!

  10. YAY! by zoloto · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is actually a little faster on my 500mhz intel system! And who said code get's slower as it ages?

    1. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not me. Every new version of OSX that has come out has made my old Mac run faster.

    2. Re:YAY! by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

      MS, That's who! (pointless flame, but it hurts because it's true)

    3. Re:YAY! by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      Actually your Mac is snappier!

    4. Re:YAY! by barryman_5000 · · Score: 1

      Especially true of sp2 . . . I wish they would make a new xkdrive though. The old ones still run great but I want a minimal X with transparency effects.

    5. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Every new version of OSX that has come out has made my old Mac run faster.

      And the funny thing is how Apple fanboys like to make out that shows how good Apple are, rather than how crappy the early OSX releases were... X_x

    6. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Apple haters continue to grumble over sour grapes.

    7. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And who said code get's slower as it ages?

      Someone who doesn't have the faintest clue how to correctly use apostrophes?

    8. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be tarty apples?

    9. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's true. The early releases of System 10 were slow and unreliable. Yet people like you lapped it up. Then when upgrades came out, and you had to pay for them, the performance improved. So after a few $100 upgrades you start harping on about how great and fast your Mac is running, how it's getting better and better. What bullshit.

  11. Torrent? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can someone set up a torrent at www.mininova.org? It is an open-tracker and well-populated.

    Someone should have done this before we slashdotted their server.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A torrent at mininova? I found one for XXX.org the other day around.

    2. Re:Torrent? by TheSurfer · · Score: 4, Informative

      As you wish: click :)

    3. Re:Torrent? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Here's a question:

      What the blazes does lol mean? And I'm not talking about "Laugh out loud" or "Lots of laughs".

      At mininova there's a whole lot of files that end with .hdtv.lol.torrent. What does it mean in that context? Is it the method with which it was captured (Linear Ordered Lumacapture), or just the initials of some guy (Lawrence Oliver Larson) with too much time on his hands?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:Torrent? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      wow. that was a FAST download. hit upwards of 600Kb/s for most of it. btcurses messed up my terminal though. ah well. keeping my client open to assist others in downloading it. Thanks for the link. :)

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    5. Re:Torrent? by bedessen · · Score: 1

      It's the name of the release group that did the capture. You might want to familiarize yourself with NFOs if this makes no sense.

  12. X.org, openoffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we need the .org in the product name? Oh yeah, ICANN is approving so many TLDs it's getting confusing.

    1. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      OpenOffice.org is used because OpenOffice it trademarked (by someone other than OpenOffice.org). X.org is probably used because X by itself is often used as an abbreviation for the X Windowing System, rather than a specific implementation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by temojen · · Score: 1

      Because X.org comes from the X organization and if they just called it X, people might confuse it with other implementations of the X11R6 specification.

    3. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by Gorffy · · Score: 1

      Beacuase the .org (organisation) TLD is meant for... orginisations! both X.org and OOo fall under that catagoery.

    4. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, what would happen if you search for X in google?

    5. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, X is not XXX, the number of the Pr0n.

    6. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just showing off their flashy single-letter domain name. Not many of those around.

    7. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      " OpenOffice.org is used because OpenOffice it trademarked (by someone other than OpenOffice.org)"

      That is totally ridiculous. If you disagree then I would suggest you go and try registering microsoft.org and see how far you get.

      Sheesh

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    8. Re:X.org, openoffice.org by The_Noid · · Score: 1

      Openoffice is registered in the benelux, see openoffice.nl. OpenOffice sells opensource desktop solutions. The owner of OpenOffice (.nl) had contact with the OpenOffice.org guys and they agreed that OpenOffice.org was ok to use.

  13. NetBSD by Coneasfast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    when will netbsd switch to xorg for its official X.

    i know they have no problem with the new XFree86 license, but there are other reasons. Xorg is the new de facto standard. it has more features, cleaner code, and the best xfree86 developers have moved to xorg. xfree86 will soon be obsolete, it's time they switch.

    what's holding them back? they can still keep xfree86 on as an alternative too.

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:NetBSD by agent+dero · · Score: 3, Informative

      `cd /usr/pkgsrc/meta-pkgs/xorg; setenv X11_TYPE xorg; make install clean`

      It's been in pkgsrc for a while, and works fine :)

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    2. Re:NetBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when will netbsd switch to xorg for its official X.

      problems reading eh? :)

    3. Re:NetBSD by agent+dero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason it's most likely not in base yet, is because X.org has problems on other problems. The older version of X in the base system has been hacked up a great deal to really make sure it'll work on as many platforms as possible.

      If it ain't broke....

      The attitude seems to be that, if you want the newer features of X.org, it's not a problem to upgrade, otherwise, the older X is 'good enough'

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    4. Re:NetBSD by Coneasfast · · Score: 1

      The older version of X in the base system has been hacked up a great deal to really make sure it'll work on as many platforms as possible.

      hmm, i must ask, have these 'hacks' that are required been reported/merged with xorg tree? has there been any collaboration efforts? or has it been modified for quite a while that it would take a lot of work to merge back?

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    5. Re:NetBSD by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, xorg has been in pkgsrc for quite a while. It's easy to use - simply add 'X11_TYPE=xorg' to /etc/mk.conf and then pkg_add or 'make' new applications. You can remove /usr/X11 at your leisure.

    6. Re:NetBSD by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Well since the hacks were actually on the XFree86 code, and XFree wasn't exactly good about accepting patches, I'd say probably not.

      But it is more than patches to XFree86 - they also have a complicated cross-compiling build system that recently got support for the X11 sets. Before they could build just about everything but X11 with this method - now they can build the entire NetBSD release for most every architecture on a single build box from a single source tree.

      If they ever do switch to x.org (which is very likely), I'd hope they'd be able to work with the x.org folks to make this an easier task.

    7. Re:NetBSD by Dog's_Breakfast · · Score: 1

      I'd like to ask the same question of OpenBSD. They are still using XFree86. Does anyone know when they'll move to Xorg? FreeBSD has already moved to Xorg, and I'm surprised the other BSDs haven't.

    8. Re:NetBSD by chadruva · · Score: 1

      Yes NetBSD 2.0 uses XFree86 4.4, which is a little broken I may say. It lacks Shadow module, this is broken and won't compile, and thus is not on the package. Vesa driver and others (trident) won't work without turning shadowfb off, which is not too much of a hasle, but on my trident card (from a old laptop, soo NO upgrades!) without shadowfb it won't work without disabling XAA Acceleration, which makes it really slow, almost unbearable.

      This dosen't happen with XFree86 4.3 or any X.org version, where turning ShadowFB on enables XAA acceleration just fine.

      NetBSD should move to X.org.

      Just My 2 Cents.

      --
      C-x C-c
    9. Re:NetBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that you've personally looked at all this code to see how clean it is?

    10. Re:NetBSD by mirabilos · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD's Matthieu Herrb is already working on
      that.

      I'll try to feed them back to XFree86(TM), though.
      MirOS will keep to use it until fd.org is
      ready, and probably years after that, leaving
      fd.o an optional package only.

      x.org doesn't have any reason to exist, for me.

      --
      My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And /. still does not get UTF-8 right in 2012. Wow.)
  14. Windows driven Linux by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I like to make little digs at my Windows-loving friends about the instability of their beloved OS, but they really got me good with their critique of X-Windows.

    If you look at what X-Windows does, beyond the standard windowing stuff, it is a lot of shading and anti-aliasing and subpixel shading and so on. These functions are actually implemented in hardware, for the most part, and the X system calls the exposed driver routines to make them work. So if your card doesn't support some feature, you aren't going to get it: it's not really supported in software.

    But, they asked, who drives the video card manufacturers? It's a rhetorical question, of course, because with Intel and Microsoft basically defining what it is to be a PC (with initiatives like PC98 and other PC definitions), it is they who are telling the video card makers which direction to go and what features to build into their cards.

    So X-windows will always lag behind Windows because Windows is the driving force behind graphics improvements. I wish I had an answer to this, but unfortunately it seems to be the case.

    1. Re:Windows driven Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. too bad for X, it can't even catch up with cutting edge features of Windows like network transparency.

    2. Re:Windows driven Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy howdy, there's a feature Microsoft users are missing! No, none of that built into Windows Server OS...

    3. Re:Windows driven Linux by creysoft · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Windows does not drive video card development. Games drive video card development, and they only drive it one direction: forward. The bigger problem is that PCs have such a wide variety of video cards, ranging from high-end to low-end, external to built-in, and they all differ in various ways. The way you do something on one card may not be the same way you do it on another.

      Apple doesn't have this problem, because Quartz Extreme supports a finite set of graphics cards, and Apple computers all ship with compatible cards. Even without Quartz Extreme, however, most of Mac OS X's eye candy still works because it's implemented in software. The only flaw is that you can't disable the fluff and save those cycles. In the end, it's probably all for the best, because Mac OS X looks like ass without it, but it would still be nice to turn off the antialiased fonts and glowing buttons when I'm trying to run three Adobe applications at once.

      Then again, I could just stop beiing a cheap bastard and buy more memory. What was my point again?

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    4. Re:Windows driven Linux by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      X does network transparency at too low a level. For general windowed applications, better performance can be achieved by running the controls on the client side and only rendering controls not present on the client system. NeWS did something like this - the controls were all interpreted and ran on the client display. I believe Windows remote desktop does this, and similar functionality is planned for GNUstep, using their distributed objects implementation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Windows driven Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same concept as Fresco, see http://fresco.org/ which seems to have run out of gas about two years ago.

    6. Re:Windows driven Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods are on crack. This couldn't be more ontopic.

      If your gona mod something down, at least use the right moderation. Even then, this should have gotten an insightful.

      Little messages to the mods:
      READ BEFORE YOU MOD SOMETHING!

    7. Re:Windows driven Linux by danheskett · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe Windows remote desktop does this
      You believe entirely, 100% wrong. Windows does no such thing.

      Remote desktop actually works very simply, much like VNC does. It's simpler than using a remote X server as well.

      Take a look at the source code for rdesktop sometime. It handles mouse and keyboard redirection, audio streaming (two way), and a video protocol.

      Remote desktop "feels fast" because of two things. For one, apparently it has some good kernel level hooks so that where other stuff has to "watch" the frame buffer to figure out changes, remote desktop is notified. It's a much more efficent method, and it means that the client is truly dumb. It doesn't have to know anything about fonts, or widgets, or windows, or anything.

      X works quite a bit differently. It also doesn't have to know about widgets and all that stuff. Windows RDP goes "after" everything is drawn and takes a look at the end product - the compisited ready to draw images or portions of portions of the screen. X actually brings the primitives over the wire. Which can be sometimes much, much faster and more bandwidth effective. It depends on the application.

      This is a good short inro on xlib programming.

    8. Re:Windows driven Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the controls were all interpreted and ran on the client display. I believe Windows remote desktop does this

      Citrix used to do something like this, but it never worked very well. Now it and WTS and rdesktop are all just remote framebuffers, just like VNC.

    9. Re:Windows driven Linux by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      You are right about NeWS; wrong about the others.

      And, yes, IMO NeWS was a much better system -- but IBM/DEC/HP et al. didn't want to license the standard graphics subsystem from SUN (they were being forced to license NFS already!). So, politics won over function.

      With X, primitives are sent over the wire, and events. This is at a higher level than Windows remote desktop.

      We mourn the loss of NeWS...

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    10. Re:Windows driven Linux by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Thanks for that. I was talking to an MS rep shortly after the XP launch and they conveyed the general impression that it was done at the widget level. I should have known not to listen to sales people talking about technical things...

      Off-topic, do you know of a good resource for explaining how you access X extensions, particularly the MIT Screensaver extension? I was trying to find some online documentation for this to port some code to X a while ago and drew a complete blank.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Windows driven Linux by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      I would not call this a cutting edge feature, it has way to many problems. The X protocol is to low level to do that stuff correctly, thus X has bandwidth and serious latency problems. Stuff like NX tries to overcome that by proxying the protocol and trying to translate it into something more high level. But in the end we will need really something more high level like a networked display PDF (networked Cairo?) to overcome the burdens of having to send thousands of commands over the net just to draw a single letter on the screen.

    12. Re:Windows driven Linux by Electroly · · Score: 1

      The grandparent poster is not correct, although he seems to be going in the right direction.

      Terminal Services catches GDI calls, things like "draw a line here" or "select this brush", compresses them to high heaven, and sends them down the wire. It does not grab the rendered bitmap data. This is why TSE is enormously faster and more bandwidth-friendly than VNC, and very similar to X11.

    13. Re:Windows driven Linux by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Terminal Services catches GDI calls, things like "draw a line here" or "select this brush", compresses them to high heaven, and sends them down the wire. It does not grab the rendered bitmap data. This is why TSE is enormously faster and more bandwidth-friendly than VNC, and very similar to X11.
      I have to disagree with you. I have examined the protocol, and the source for rdesktop before, and there is no relation to the commands RDP uses and GDI calls.

      RDP is better than VNC simply because it "knows" exactly which bits of the screen have been repainted, by hooking into the paint event on all hDc's displayed. The whole process happens in kernel level, with very low latency. In comparsion, VNC and other apps have to come user space and blit a copy of the framebuffer, do some type of compare operation - essentially "poll" the framebuffer - to find what changes. There has been development on a low-level "hooks" interface that will get closer to the actual redraws, but it's still a long way from how low RDP interfaces with Windows. There is also some good work being done on interfacing via the video driver, and mirroring that off into a lower-latency framebuffer for vnc to work with.

      Check out: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/termserv/termserv/remote_desktop_pr otocol.asp

      The relevant portion is:

      On the server, RDP uses its own video driver to render display output by constructing the rendering information into network packets using RDP protocol and sending them over the network to the client. On the client, RDP receives rendering data and interprets the packets into corresponding Microsoft Win32® graphics device interface (GDI) API calls.

      Notice: the client constructs GDI calls based on the data sent over. They are not GDI calls natively.

      RDP is conceptually very different from X11, and much more similiar to VNC.

  15. Changelog by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear Taco,

    Please post a link to a summary of changes when anouncing the release of a new version of any software.

    1. Re:Changelog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      X.org is getting hammered by /. so here is the summary of changes:

      2. Summary of new features in X11R6.8.2

      This is a sampling of the new features in X11R6.8.2. A more complete list of changes can be found in the ChangeLog file that is part of the X source tree.

      * Freetype was updated to version 2.1.8. But installing freetype from X distributions would often or usually result in the replacement or use of "stale" versions of freetype. On Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris 10, and SCO5, therefore, X11R6.8.2 will by default use the version of freetype2 that is installed on the system. If your system doesn't come with an installed freetype2 and you wish to use the version supplied with this distribution, please add: #define HasFreetype2 NO to config/cf/host.def.
      * The XTT font module and FreeType1 have been retired because FreeType2 subsumes their functionality
      * Retire old PS Type1 font rasterizer (except for CID font usage) since the FreeType2 rasterizer now handles PS Type1 (*.pfa, *.pfb)
      * Render implementation fixes
      * Updated x86emu and resynced with upstream at Scitech
      * Updated SiS driver
      * Updated Nvidia driver (opensource version)
      * Render acceleration for ATI's R100 and R200-series cards
      * Substantial speedups in the software implementation of the render extensions when compiled with gcc 3.4 on the i386 architecture.
      * Infrastructure for rotation support in drivers
      * New Trapezoid specification for the Render extension
      o Respecify Render to include only 'normal' traps
      o Allow backward compatibility but internally covert to new format
      * Software mouse cursor is now based on the Damage extension
      * A new keyboard driver is enabled by default. The old driver is disabled unless explicitly compiled in by defining the macro |USE_DEPRECATED_KEYBOARD_DRIVER|.
      * All extensions (except Xserver-specific extensions "DMX" and "XpExtension") can now be enabled/disabled from the configuration file and from the command line.
      * Mac OS X updates:
      o Support dynamic screen configuration changes in rootless mode
      o Added option to always use Mac command key equivalents
      o Interpret scroll wheel mouse events correctly when shift is held down
      o Added trivial Xinput support
      o Fixed launch of X clients from Finder with a space in their path
      o Fixed some GLX rendering problems on Mac OS X 10.2 and earlier
      * Updated xterm version

      2.1. New X extensions

      X11R6.8.2 includes four new extensions:

      XFixes

      The XFixes extension is a collection of improvements for deficiencies in the core protocol, including

      * Notification when a selection changes
      * Server-side region objects
      * Allow clients to track the cursor image

      Damage

      The Damage extension allows a client to be notified whenever something is drawn to a window. This feature is useful for VNC servers, for screen magnifiers, and for clients using the Composite extension to update the screen.
      Composite (experimental)

      The Composite extension allows a client to request that all drawing to window is redirected to off-screen buffer. Though the Damage extension the client, called a 'compositing manager', can know which areas of a window is modified and render the windows on screen. By making use of the drawing requests from both the core protocol and the RENDER extension, the compositing manager can create special effects, such as translucennt windows.

      The Composite extension is considered experimental in X11R6.8.2 and is turned off by default.
      XEvIE (X Event Interception Extension) (experimental)

      XEvIE is an extension to intercept core keyboard and pointing device input It allows consumation, modification or synthesis of input events before these are sent to their final destination (i.e., interested clients). This feature is required by the GNOME accessibility project.

      The XEvIE extension is considered experimental

  16. All I want by suso · · Score: 1

    is for the nvidia (from nvidia) driver to not lockup under Gentoo. Unfortunately, I guess nobody has found the reason for that happening yet.

    1. Re:All I want by ville · · Score: 1

      Only happens for me if I use one screen on TV out.

      // ville

    2. Re:All I want by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Had a similar problem myself.

      Update to a moderately recent version of portage, (2.0.51 iirc)

      and add
      >=media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.6629
      >=media -video/nvidia-glx-1.0.6629

      to your /etc/portage/package.mask file, then "emerge nvidia-kernel nvidia-glx"

      That should drop you down to the 6111 driver, which is far more stable than the piece of crap 6629. Reboot, or kill your window manager, rmmod nvidia, and modprobe the new one and things should be a lot more stable.

      I've gone from locking up X two or three times a day to running solid under heavy load for over three days now with no problem, so I'm fairly sure its fixed it for me too.

      It looks like I'm having a similar problem on windows XP too with the current drivers, so I'm going to try the same thing there.

      HTH!

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    3. Re:All I want by nagora · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, I guess nobody has found the reason for that happening yet.

      I've not seen it happen in coming on a year of Gentoo/nvidia use. Which version of the driver have you emerged?

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:All I want by praseodym · · Score: 1

      Same problem for me, although it's been less the last few weeks. Weird enough my clock is always out of sync too while I run ntpd...

    5. Re:All I want by d1337 · · Score: 1

      I've had the time out of sync problem on two of my last 4 Debian installs. apt-get install ntpdate has fixed it for me. If it's already there...sorry, I tried.

      --
      sig d1337ed
    6. Re:All I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Locks up regularly doing 3D for me (tried 3 different cards so far), but it may be because I'm running an SMP setup. UP boot doesn't seem to experience the same troubles.

    7. Re:All I want by blixel · · Score: 1

      I had that problem too with my FX5200 PCI card. But my AGP FX5700 Ultra doesn't have any problem.

      Now if I can just figure out why my hard-drive light goes on and stays on for no apparent reason, and causes my system to hang once every 1 to 10 days.

    8. Re:All I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think that would be cron doing an 'updatedb'... which allows the 'locate' command to show you the latest stuff. I know that happens to me. If you don't like it, there's a tone of infon on setting up cron jobs.

    9. Re:All I want by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The reason is known. It's name is nvidia. Seriously. This is one of the disadvantages of a closed driver. After one too many lockups under FreeBSD I dumped my card and got a Radeon. Its open source driver, while not perfect, is fairly decent and hasn't locked up once.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  17. X.org by Sunspire · · Score: 4, Informative

    Forget about the X.org website, it's worthless. If you want to see what's changed in 6.8.2, turn to the release notes over at Freedesktop.org.

    --
    It's like deja vu all over again.
  18. PCI-Express and X86-64 fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bought parts for a new PC which arrived on Monday, and while setting up SuSE 9.2 I discovered a slight ... incompatibility. If you're using a PCI-Express NVidia card on x86-64, things may prove somewhat problematic with X.org 6.8.1. In my case, the graphical installer simply wouldn't run, and after installing via VNC I couldn't get the proprietary NVidia driver to work without serious corruption of the mouse pointer, missing text and so on.

    I had been concerned that I'd have to switch off stuff like dual-head, hardware acceleration etc., but it turns out it's a (now fixed) bug in X.org regarding PIC-Express and 64-bit Linux on AMD processors. I was downloading some semi-official 6.8.2 packages just before seeing this...

    So, if you're having problems with X on a spangly new system, I hope this helps. ;-)

    1. Re:PCI-Express and X86-64 fixes by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      ... and, it works! Now I can escape from the login-forgetting w3m...

      Currently I've only got single-head going, but everything's gloriously accelerated, including OpenGL. Even the open nv driver now works for the basics. Hurrah!

      If you want the SuSE 9.2 RPMs for 6.8.2 RC3, read this. You'll need to manually copy a SaX2-produced XF86Config to xorg.conf unless you upgrade SaX2 as well - I haven't found pre-compiled x86-64 RPMs for that yet, so I think I'm going to have to compile some myself.

      Ah, life on the bleeding edge. ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:PCI-Express and X86-64 fixes by njchick · · Score: 1

      The free "nv" driver is single head only, but you can choose which head to use by using the CrtcNumber option. To support dual head, the driver should call xf86SetEntitySharable(), which it doesn't do yet, perhaps for a good reason.

    3. Re:PCI-Express and X86-64 fixes by cortana · · Score: 1

      'nv' now does OpenGL? Woo!

    4. Re:PCI-Express and X86-64 fixes by Sux2BU · · Score: 1

      A patch is out there to fix this, and I'm hoping it's included in the new release. For Gentoo, the patch is available here. You can probably just patch it yourself for other OSes. It is based around the patch given in the X.org bug entry.

    5. Re:PCI-Express and X86-64 fixes by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      'nv' now does OpenGL? Woo!

      Oops - nv is just the basics, and seems a fair bit slower than the proprietary nvidia driver - but there is the slight improvement in that it now actually works on my new PC. :-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  19. New freetype by m50d · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now maybe some of the "Linux fonts are awful" trolls will stop.

    --
    I am trolling
    1. Re:New freetype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not trolls. The fonts look awful out-of-the -box. Fuzzy antialiased or jagged.

    2. Re:New freetype by sloanster · · Score: 1
      Now maybe some of the "Linux fonts are awful" trolls will stop.

      No, they will never stop. Even though linux fonts have been totally sweet for some time now, the fudsters will forever gripe about the 1993-era slackware distro that they once saw, as if it were still relevant.

    3. Re:New freetype by filipncs · · Score: 1
      They are not trolls. The fonts look awful out-of-the -box. Fuzzy antialiased or jagged.
      On what distribution?
    4. Re:New freetype by Eneff · · Score: 1

      Mepis for one.

      (I swapped them out for the Microsoft fonts, which I prefer.)

    5. Re:New freetype by kayak334 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to troll here... more asking for help.

      I don't think the fonts are "awful," but I will say that there is something ... weird(?) about them. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but they just don't seem as crisp maybe? I'd be happy to try new fonts, I think I tried artwiz and speedo(maybe?) on Gentoo, but if anyone has any better suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

      J

    6. Re:New freetype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take screen shot in Linux.
      Zoom in and watch.
      Yes, fonts are a mess.
      I think is a patent issue.
      Too bad, realy

    7. Re:New freetype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, as you say, it depends on the fonts, and not on linux... hmmmm. blame linux for the copyrights on microsofts fonts. hmmmm. logical.

    8. Re:New freetype by Paralizer · · Score: 1

      Some of them are bad, others are pretty good.

      I still use Verdana though, (please don't hurt me!)

    9. Re:New freetype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, as you say, Linux is once again not accountable for its problems ... hmmmm

      So tell me ... when will the Linux community finally admit to certain issues and become accountable for them, instead of the "Not a problem with X/KDE/GNOME/the kernel/glibc! Complain to _____!" attitude?

    10. Re:New freetype by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      I tried to replace an aging redhat system with Mandrake at work , and found it had great fonts out of the box. Unfortunately something very subtle changed in some library, and one button broke on one users application. So I had to revert back to redhat and the lousy fonts. I have to work on a SuSE box at work, and it has really lousy fonts IMO.

    11. Re:New freetype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most modern distros come with bitstream vera available. Just use those if you don't like the defaults and are loathe to get the MS fonts.

    12. Re:New freetype by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      If you're not using Bitstream Vera, try it out. It's free (and mostly open) and not too bad. If that still doesn't rock your boat, there are the Microsoft "webfonts", which are slightly better. They're free, but not as open.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    13. Re:New freetype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so when just viewing them they are fine in my opin,but if i go out of my way to do some task that never actually happens in real life, i can find flaws.
      wow

    14. Re:New freetype by m50d · · Score: 1
      Antialiasing being turned on or off? It's a personal thing really, antialiasing makes things smoother but blurrier.

      Did you remember the USE flag to enable the patented bits in freetype? (They help with hinting rather than actual font display, if your letters are looking incorrectly positioned that's why)

      --
      I am trolling
    15. Re:New freetype by kayak334 · · Score: 1

      Ah, thank you. I don't think I enabled the USE flag.

  20. Section Linux? by devphaeton · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess the BSDs still don't count on /.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:Section Linux? by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      No, it's just quid pro quo for the KDE 3.4 Beta 2 article being posted under the BSD section.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    2. Re:Section Linux? by adamjaskie · · Score: 0, Troll

      Netcraft confirms... ...BSD is dying.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    3. Re:Section Linux? by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the moderators? that was funny (and it just HAD to be said) and not a troll....

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    4. Re:Section Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What's wrong with the moderators? that was funny (and it just HAD to be said) and not a troll....

      uh, no, it's a worn out and overly used joke that nobody finds funny anymore...

    5. Re:Section Linux? by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

      Netcraft confirms, BSD jokes are dying....

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    6. Re:Section Linux? by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary, BSD jokes are reproducing like rabbits (unfortunately, each generation is less funny than the last)

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    7. Re:Section Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they? They fucking suck!

    8. Re:Section Linux? by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

      to be exact, those aren't BSD jokes but netcraft jokes ... (Netcraft confirms ......)

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    9. Re:Section Linux? by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they changed this after your post, but, this article is in the BSD section. I guess the Linux section overrides that because it was assigned there first?

      Anyway, it is in both sections. This was a change made to Slashcode a while back, to allow an article to be "cross-section" if needed. This one is.

      You can view it in the BSD theme if you want, too.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  21. Why is this under "Linux"? by MondoMor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This applies to a broad range of OSes. It has very little to do with Linux directly.

    1. Re:Why is this under "Linux"? by Jason+Hood · · Score: 2, Informative


      This applies to a broad range of OSes.

      Very true.


      It has very little to do with Linux directly.

      False, linux is by far the largest user platform for xorg.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    2. Re:Why is this under "Linux"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It has very little to do with Linux directly.
      False, linux is by far the largest user platform for xorg.

      It still has very little to do with Linux directly. It was invented at MIT before Linux existed. It was widely used before Linux existed. It runs on many other operating systems. Apple offers X11 as an option for OS X. It runs on all versions of Unix, commercial and free. It's just not a Linux thing any more than gcc is a Linux thing or Apache is a Linux thing.

    3. Re:Why is this under "Linux"? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Funny, just yesterday a guy was complaining about a KDE story being in the BSD section. I think it's time to give every story its own section, that way no one will complain...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  22. cool, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny



    cool, but will it run Linux?

  23. XFree by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What happened to those guys? David Dawes' crusade finally just peter out? Does anyone else still use XFree?

    1. Re:XFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, according to this it's still used by FreeBSD, NetBSD, and a handful of mostly obscure Linux distro's.

      I think the FreeBSD thing is wrong though. Maybe they still ship both or something; but I'm pretty sure FreeBSD has switched to X.org, at least as the default. NetBSD, I have no idea if that's accurate or not.

    2. Re:XFree by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else still use XFree?

      Yes. Debian and RedHat Enterprise still use Xfree86. Fedora and the upcoming RHEL 5.x are using x.org.

      So, yes, alot of people still use XFree.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    3. Re:XFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Dawes's crusade simply resulted in XFree86 becoming irrelevant, with breathtaking speed.

      XFree86 became a problem and the community routed around it. No problem.

      I'm tempted to make some snippy joke about David Dawes working as a janitor someplace, but there is no need. Who really cares what happens to him and XFree86 now? We've moved on.

    4. Re:XFree by molo · · Score: 1

      Debian is using XFree86 4.3.0 + patches that are licensed properly. The plan is to release Sarge with this version and then switch over to Xorg.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    5. Re:XFree by RdsArts · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD defaults to XOrg as of 5.3. NetBSD still ships XFree 4.something as default, but they've started to move to XOrg as well. You can use XOrg on NetBSD instead by setting a make variable, and AFAIK it will be defaulting to XOrg as of 3.0 which is due out sometime near the end of this year I believe.

    6. Re:XFree by nitehorse · · Score: 1

      Actually, the upcoming version of RHEL with X.org is RHEL 4.0, not RHEL5. RHEL5 is still a whisper and a dream at this point.

      (disclaimer: I work for Red Hat, and may actually know what I'm talking about. Please do not let this disrupt your regular Slashdot experience.)

    7. Re:XFree by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Doh! That was typo. I meant 4.x .. I use 3.x, was reading about new features in 4.x, and my brain kept incrementing the number...

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  24. Xgl by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about Xgl, the port of X to OpenGL HW/SW?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Xgl by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Once again, someone copies Apple and yet completely misses the point. In OS X, all windows have a drop shadow, but the active window has a deeper one than all of the others making it obvious to the subconscious that it is `closer'. In the screenshot, all windows had the same amount of shadow. Nice eye-candy, but not good user interface design.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Xgl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gotta love a post about people missing the point that completely misses the point.

    3. Re:Xgl by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, you've missed the point. The point is that his X server is calling OpenGL, for all its rendering. So the HW can do all kinds of special effects, like piping scaled windows around for better representation of related contexts. Quibbling about beta features like dropshadow differentiation is really just sour grapes. I worked at Apple for a while; I know how tempting it is to complain when someone else furthers a technique Apple pioneered, or even just pioneered in promoting. If Apple were publishing GPL OpenGL X versions that run on other OS'es than OSX, there might be something to complain about. But not really - then we'd be happy to have some competition to keep things moving forward.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Xgl by algae · · Score: 1

      You've both missed the point. The grandparent missed that X.org uses hardware for rendering, which is a Good Thing. You missed the point that, whereas Apple uses that rendering to convey information about which window has focus, the X11 desktop in question uses it for eye-candy. Hardware rendering is only as useful as what you're rendering.

      --
      Causation can cause correlation
    5. Re:Xgl by iabervon · · Score: 1

      That's because the composite manager used in the screenshot is just a little test program. Once the Composite extension is generally supported, window managers will handling that as well, and then effects can be done (conveniently) based on focus. Then people can experiment with a lot of different effects, and possibly come up with better ones than OS X has (perhaps all windows have done shadows, but the active window has a halo? Maybe the active window has a halo, and is a light source that other windows cast shadows away from?).

    6. Re:Xgl by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you haven't read the description of Xgl to which I linked. Friedman wrote

      "Want live, running thumbnailed versions of iconified windows? Done. Want your six virtual desktops to be the six faces of a cube that spins, with lighting?"

      That's a lot more than eyecandy, a lot more than dropshadows. That's the beginning of a newly interactive media desktop. The rest of the OpenGL features for X are left as an exercise for the imagination for the next several years.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Xgl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they haven't copied the code. Apple have written close to nothing of OS X themselves, it's mostly open source programs they are source copying from. Nothing wrong with that. But it's true.

    8. Re:Xgl by Apotsy · · Score: 1

      That guy is a riot. On this page he complains about MS "biting" his idea, but on the Xgl page, he dismisses the pioneering work done by Apple as "cute hacks" and says it is now "our space to explore", despite the fact that it's already been explored. Who is "biting" now, eh?

    9. Re:Xgl by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and in OS X, the continue to use the crappy dock, despite the known flaws it its design with respect to usability.

      Seriously man, Apple is great, but give it a rest. We don't need any more zealots around here, we have enough already.

    10. Re:Xgl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X provides mechanism, not policy.

      Here is a mechanism to shadow windows (and for that matter to rotate them in 3D space...). What you do with that is up to you. If you use desktop software written by someone who was just fooling around, it probably won't obey any particular HIG, and it may be one or more of...

      beautiful
      hideous
      complex
      useless
      enormous
      dull
      sparse
      simple
      bewildering ...

      None of which has anything to do with X, because X just provided the mechanism, like a blank canvas or an empty page.

    11. Re:Xgl by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What's been explored in the "X on OpenGL" space? He actually says

      "David has a lot of ideas like these, and you probably do too. Apple's cute hacks, like Expose, are inspirational but now that space can be ours to explore. Xgl opens up a whole world of hardware acceleration, fancy animations, separating hardware resolution from software resolution, and more."

      I don't find that "dismissive" - he calls it "inspirational". He's talking about exploring the space of OpenGL in the desktop, of which Apple's Expose is just a peek at the kinds of new, undeveloped features he's excited about. That's pretty different from MS copying his other project, Dashboard, wholesale.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Xgl by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I agree on the OS X dock. It is irritating, because it is so easy to fix (just align the dock with the corner of the screen instead of the centre of a side and most of the UI problems go away). There are a number of things in OS X that are 99% right from a UI perspective, making it very irritating that you can't just tweak the source code and get that extra 1%. Projects like GNUstep take a critical look at the OS X GUI, copy the good bits and improve the flawed parts. It's just depressing that most open source projects seem more intent on copying the eye candy than the usability.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  25. Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The new X.Org release, called X Window System Version 11, Release 6.8.2 (X11R6.8.2) builds on the work of X.org X11R6.8.0 and X11R6.8.1 released in 2004."

    phew! I thought I misunderstood the concept of versioning for the better part of my life...

  26. Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at the changes, I say *yawn*.

    Why is this even newsworthy? Oooh we actually have a handfull of new drivers for common hardware now, woohpee.

  27. What does this thing do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    can someone explain simply ?

  28. Version 6 by hummassa · · Score: 2, Informative

    the X windowing system is at Version 11 release 6 (X11R6) since the early 1990's.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Version 6 by isdnip · · Score: 1

      The X Window System started in the early 1980s and went through versions 1 though 10 rather quickly before getting to version 11, where the high-order digit got stuck.

      Then it went through releases fairly quickly until getting to Release 6, where it got stuck.

      Now it's two more significant digits to the right. X Windows is not the only product with this kind of number inertia, but it's a classic. As the product matures, the version numbers stop incrementing, but <i>the number of significant digits in the version number</i> increments instead!

      So we're at Stage 4 now, and maybe we'll end up with something like X11R6v8.2.3 soon.

    2. Re:Version 6 by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I'm actually using X11R5 on an old codebase at work. It's mostly the same, except everytime you look up a X11 manpage online it says "deprecated".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  29. duh by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

    It's exactly the same in X.org, as I pointed before.

    1. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference being that Freedesktop.org is not currently slashdotted - so his link works and yours doesn't. :p

  30. Just how fucking stupid are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drop shadows and the like are the domain of a Window Manager, not X.

  31. Linux? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This should have been put in the BSD section as well, for obvious reasons. I'd add the Unix section, except there isn't one. Come to think of it, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to have a single section for Linux and Unix (including BSD)? The distinction between Linux and Unix is more legal than technical.

    1. Re:Linux? by adiposity · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. The technical differences between AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux are significant (to name a few). If nothing else, the BSD section allows me to click on a single link and see if anything new is happening in the BSD world.

      However, I agree that stories like this belong in a more general category. Perhaps we should have a "Unix" section, with subsections like "OS" (containing news about Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), "Apps" containing news about X, Apache, Mozilla, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of these apps exist in Windows, as well, so such things perhaps belong in the "main."

      Oh well, looks like there will always be some cross-over between sections. I like it how it is; only BSD specific stuff shows up in BSD, and stuff like this usually makes it to the front page anyhow.

      -Dan

    2. Re:Linux? by fm6 · · Score: 1
      I like it how it is; only BSD specific stuff shows up in BSD, and stuff like this usually makes it to the front page anyhow.
      Good point. The sections are mainly there to help people drill down to stories they're interested in. And few Slashdotters have more than a casual interest in Unix, except for some specific manifestions: Linux, BSD, OS X, etc.

      As a technical communicator, I squirm every time I look at Slashdot's disorderly section and topic structure. But that disorder probably suits most Slashdotters very well.

    3. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't complain about lack of sections, um, err, options.

    4. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      However, I agree that stories like this belong in a more general category. Perhaps we should have a "Unix" section, with subsections like "OS" [ ... ] "Apps" containing news about X, Apache, Mozilla, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of these apps exist in Windows, as well, so such things perhaps belong in the "main."

      Oh well, looks like there will always be some cross-over between sections.

      Well then, perhaps what is needed is for Slashdot to support a story being present in multiple sections at once. Then this story could go in "Unix", "BSD", and even "X" (if there were such a section). In other words, is there are reason sections have to be disjoint?

    5. Re:Linux? by setagllib · · Score: 1

      It's Slashdot, items are classified by the audience most likely to care, and since there are more Linux users than BSD users (and we have no general 'FOSS' category), they want to offend the smallest portion of the population. Slash is all about politics, didn't you notice? The article is listed under BSD as well but retains its Linux: prefix.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
  32. Just a guess... by temojen · · Score: 1

    NetBSD's big claim to fame is portability.... It takes a while to fully test a large package on that many architectures and implementations (Chances are it takes a really long time to compile on a VAX 11/780, for example).

    1. Re:Just a guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't they cross-compile?

    2. Re:Just a guess... by codemachine · · Score: 1

      They cross compile XFree86, but it took a bit of work for that to become possible.

      I imagine it isn't possible to cross-compile to very many architectures with the current x.org tree, though I could be wrong.

  33. Arbitrary resolution and refresh rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish the X.org team would improve the RANDR extension to be able to set an arbitrary refresh rate at any resolution /(eg. no modelines). For some reason, X thinks 75Hz is the maximum refresh rate in 1152x864, although my monitor can handle well above 100. And, no. It's not because I've specified my Vert/Horizontal refresh incorrectly in the configuration file.

    And speaking of resolutions. Why is it that I have to specify which resolutions I want available in X? Surely it should be able to autodetect this? For power-users, it would be nice if you could specify an arbitrary resolution "on-the-fly". Much like you (almost) can in Windows. If it fails, simply have it go back after 15 seconds.

    1. Re:Arbitrary resolution and refresh rate by erikharrison · · Score: 1

      I'll answer this, just FYI, though you probably won't actually see it.

      The problem is the refresh rate of your Video Card. Since X.org has little in the way of card specs, the result is that we have to do stuff like ask the BIOS what modes it can set the card to. The BIOS rarely has all the resolutions and refresh rates that the card can handle, but since we don't know which registers to twiddle and bits to flip, we have to ask the BIOS to do all the work. We simply cannot make the card do any other resolutions in this case, no ifs ands or buts.

    2. Re:Arbitrary resolution and refresh rate by PenGun · · Score: 0

      Power user ... heh. Oh hey I found the place to click where it lets me see all possible resolutions.

      Clue ... modelines, dig > http://wiki.x.org/wiki/FAQVideoModes

      PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

    3. Re:Arbitrary resolution and refresh rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I did see it. :-)

      Let me get this straight. You are basically saying that if the Video Card specs were open, this would be a non-issue? How is this handled in Windows? Do the graphics card manufacturers provide specs to Microsoft?

  34. Waiting for 6.9 & Gatos by �berhund · · Score: 1

    Since this is just a bugfix release, it doesn't have all the juicy stuff from CVS. Specifically, I'm waiting for the Gatos ATI TV drivers, which are in CVS and should come *native* out with xorg 6.9.

    As it is, I'm running FC3 with an xorg RPM I built from CVS code. Just took the SPEC file from the stock 6.8.1 SRPM, modified it a bit, and reran "rpmbuild -bp specfile", removing a patch at a time from the spec file until it stopped complaining. Then it built happily (rpmbuild -bb).

    Probably one of the easier installs of the gatos drivers I've done. :-P

    --
    -Uberhund
  35. Mine is perfect by DnemoniX · · Score: 1

    Must be bad karma I have been running the Nvidia driver, not "nv", under Gentoo for many months. Hasn't locked on me once.

    1. Re:Mine is perfect by suso · · Score: 1

      Its not just me though (as this thread shows), if you look through the gentoo forums for this problem you will see that some people have the problem and others don't. People who have the same nvidia drivers will have differing results. Its a very strange and hard to track down problem.

  36. Xprint by HadenT · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering, why xprint isn't deprecated by now?

    1. Re:Xprint by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      From what I've read on X.org's website, it looks like xprint is getting a lot of new development.

      I'm not really sure why, or what the point is with CUPS. Anyone have any insight?

    2. Re:Xprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xprint isn't deprecated (despite the noisy "annoucements" of Mike Harris - he is not speaking in behalf of X.org) and won't be in the forseeable future.

    3. Re:Xprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xprint is a print API on top of the spooler (e.g. CUPS, LPRng, etc.) and allows things which CUPS cannot provide (like transparency or printing using a non-Postscript rendering model such as OpenGL(!!)).
      CUPS won't be replaced by Xprint - the compination of both will increase the value of the Linux print API a lot.

    4. Re:Xprint by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So does this mean Xprint will require application support? Or does it just need support from, for instance, KDE's print subsystem? Is it supported by anything yet? Is there a reason currently for me to bother installing xprint?

      You should get an account, so your posts aren't scored 0. You seem to actually have useful information to contribute; it'd be better if it weren't rated down with all the trolls.

    5. Re:Xprint by jogall · · Score: 1

      Who claims that Xprint is depreciated? AFAIK it's one of the most active X projects right now.

    6. Re:Xprint by jogall · · Score: 1

      AFAIK Xprint either requires application or toolkit support. For KDE Trolltech is AFAIK working (or Suse?!) on Xprint support in Qt, other applications and toolkits like Eclipse, Firefox, JAVA5, Mozilla, Motif (and in X11R6.8.2 even the Xaw lib) have Xprint support right now.

    7. Re:Xprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK Xprint needs some client-side support, either in the application itself or the API which the application uses to print (KDE's print subsystem in your case or Gnome-Print where Sun already demonstrated a Xprint-based Gnome-Print module).
      And yes, Xprint is supported by various applications, Mozilla being the most popular one right now but also covering smaller applications like xedit up to the highend commercial kits like Catia3D (which prints using Xprint's OpenGL API).

    8. Re:Xprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another feature Xprint supports (and CUPS doesn't): Print as SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics) or image (MNG, GIF)!

    9. Re:Xprint by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Is there any real noticable advantage to using Xprint currently?

    10. Re:Xprint by Sebazzi · · Score: 1

      XPrint is NOT deprecated. It's under active development and becoming better and better :-)

    11. Re:Xprint by Sebazzi · · Score: 1

      Some noticeable advantags of using Xprint currently:
      - You are not limited to the Postscript/PDF rendering model - you can use whatever you want (X core model, Xrender, OpenGL, Postscript, PCL, SVG, etc.)
      - Upward compatibility to future features added to the server (add Xprint support now to your application and get new features once they have been added to the server, no need to change/upgrade your application)
      - Network-transparency
      - Low resource usage for thin clients or handhelds (Xprint server can run on the print server and can be shared among many clients)

  37. About the whole X Window server by mnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've used Windows, MacOSX, various commercial unices, linux and bsd, and have come to a conclusion, that the X server's client-server design compromises the latency of usage.

    I thought this was a driver issue, for example, on the same machine, opening, moving and resizing windows is very snappy on any window system beside X, be it MSWindows (yeah I know crappy, insecure, bloaty etc, but snappy), BeOS or OSX. Even the X11 on Darwin isnt quite as snappy as it should be being a GUI system.

    In the case of BeOS, the graphic system is highly simplified, compared to client-server X, with a window manager on top. In the case of MSWindows, all graphics card manufacturers have designed their cards and their drivers to be optimum for windows, each little function on any chip, of rage, TNT, Matrox is used in the best way to blit, display and alter windows. I dont know much about cocoa, which came from the NeXT design...

    Apart from the latency, I think the process priority of X and its child processes should also be rethought, under heavy load X and its WM becomes very unresponsive.

    Linux/BSD have far superior OS designs and c libraries compared to MSWindows, its sad to see something simple holding them back from the Desktop market. Sure the lack of opensource graphics drivers are also holding it back, and so is the lack of standardization (gnome vs QT, menu system and location in the filesystem, even package standards... rpm?), but this one hurts in that it affects the image of opensourced OSes to commandline-shy users. gl-enabled apps even within windows run beautifully, but superior hardware is required to let the window system run as smoothly as other OSes. Some people think part of the culprit is the GUI system sitting outside of the kernel space, and all GUI-related processes being in a tree, rather than being children of init.

    I wonder if X can be compiled as X-lite, bypassing the client-server overhead, possibly compiling WITH a simple WM rather than running it on top, and being run at a higher priority, should make things smooth. Any thoughts?

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't be done simply. all windows on X whether they're local or not are already client/server.

    2. Re:About the whole X Window server by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      On the current crop of uni-processor systems, X latency may be an issue. Not a big one, though... Seems worst with OS that is not "HT" aware running on a Xeon.

      But, multi-CPU is the "wave of the future". On such systems, X will render on its own processor, and will seem to perform BETTER than the alternatives. X Windows "sweet spot" has always been either (1) at least 2 CPUs or (2) a dedicated X terminal with high-speed link.

      As to "X-lite", the networking is already bypassed if running on the same box.

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    3. Re:About the whole X Window server by Malc · · Score: 1

      " on the same machine, opening, moving and resizing windows is very snappy on any window system beside X, be it MSWindows [...], BeOS or OSX"

      You ran OSX on the same machine as Windows? I didn't think that was possible. Do you have a PPC port of Windows, or an x86 port of OSX?

      Anyway, wasn't DRI (or whatever it's called) supposed to deliver a performance boost?

    4. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of an emulator?

    5. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well durr: of course it won't run at the same speed. Do you have a brain? Even half of one?

    6. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apart from the latency, I think the process priority of X and its child processes should also be rethought, under heavy load X and its WM becomes very unresponsive.

      In many cases this is the right thing to do! At least, on servers it's the best thing. Interactive performance is important, but sometimes other things are more important.

      But you are right that context switches do cause latency. When you have two processes interacting with each other, then each time one stops running and it's time for the other to run, that other is sitting in the run queue and it must come up to the front of the queue before it can run. If you have a heavy load, this will result in latency, because some other process (or processes) will run for an entire time slice.

      To some extent, you could reduce the effects of this with a clever scheduler. You could have interactive processes that can jump to the head of the queue in front of non-interactive processes, and you can place limits on how long they run to prevent them from hogging the system. However, you'll never totally fix the problem this way.

      Still, I think it's very important not to break the modularity of X11. It's one of the great features of Unix. I can remotely do stuff via command line, but if necessary I can do remote stuff graphically too. This is totally invaluable to the system administrator. In some cases, it's the difference between having to walk three buildings over (or having to fly to another city) to spend 15 seconds clicking two buttons and being able to do it from your desk. It's so important that even though Windows doesn't natively have this feature, MS has tried to add it to Windows, and third-party companies sell products that let you do this kind of stuff. But, they all basically suck because the system wasn't designed for that, and it was cobbled on afterwards.

      So, if any work is done trying to solve this problem with X11, it would be really nice if it's done in a way that doesn't sacrifice abstraction and network-independence in the name of shaving microseconds off of things that are already acceptably fast.

      There are some ways of possibly fixing X11 without breaking abstraction that ought to be explored. For example, Solaris (and some other operating systems) have an IPC mechanism called doors. Doors let one process make calls into another process, but in effect the caller's thread executes inside the memory space of the called process. Then the thread returns to the caller, and you've accomplished communication without having to put threads into the scheduler queue (and wait for them to come out at the other end) at all! If you could do the same thing with X11, you could get the interactive performance desired by making this one method of communicating with the X11 server and still allow the X11 clients and servers to communicate by traditional methods (like TCP sockets).

      Another method of doing the same thing would be to have the X11 client thread use some system call to directly wake up an X11 server thread (bypassing the scheduler) and have the X11 server thread do the same thing to wake up the client thread when the request has been processed. You'd still have context switches, but at least you wouldn't have threads sitting in queues.

      And then a wholly different approach (which involves completely re-writing everything) is to put everything in the same address space, but use something Java-like (or actual Java) so that you don't have pointers and you can mathematically verify that one process won't screw with another's data. Then you can put a security system in place to control access to resources, and everything can just co-exist and call everything else directly.

      Anyway, the point is that the client-server architecture is useful, and there are ways of fixing the performance without sacrificing it. Just recompiling everything into one big monolithic piece as a performance hack is go

    7. Re:About the whole X Window server by drew · · Score: 1

      Apart from the latency, I think the process priority of X and its child processes should also be rethought, under heavy load X and its WM becomes very unresponsive.

      this is easy enough to do on most unices without making any changes either to X or the under lying os. learn about 'nice'- the semantics vary a bit depending on which unix you are using, but you can start the X server with a higher priority if you choose. you can also start your X session with a higher priority, and any apps you run from that session should inherit that. this is not always desirable, but if you think it would improve things, you are welcome to try it out- it's not too tough.

      compiling a window manager into X would provide little or no advantage to the current method, and would probably cause riots in most of the open source community.

      as for client server, the client server model is fine in theory, but they really muched up the implementation of it. as jwz once said, an x client has to go through at least three context switches just to blow it's nose, much less do any real work. there have been some attempts over the years to improve the situation, such as the shared memory extension, but most were rather half-hearted. the biggest problem is that the x toolkits do all of their rendering client side, so rather than passing a few high level toolkit calls to the x server, they are doing most of the high level work internally, and passing the redered application to the x server via a large number of very low level calls. it's a bummer really, but it's getting much better in recent years, and now that x.org has taken the reigns from xfree86, so to speak, the improvements seem to be coming a little faster.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    8. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a PPC port of Windows, its called Windows NT 4.0.

    9. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup you are right. X Windows is a dinosaur from the past. Slow, clunky, bloated and full of useless functionality than 99% of people will never use.

      It is the big weakness of all Unixes.

      It is horrible

    10. Re:About the whole X Window server by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      I run X/KDE on a SMP machine and I have to tell you that X/KDE is still horribly sluggish compared to Windows is, even on much slower single CPU PCs, although I suppose that this could be caused by KDE rather than X.

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    11. Re:About the whole X Window server by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I have to use Windows at work. And while the GUI is mostly smooth and responsive, there are times it's very jerky and slow. People have told me this is because the software that is installed puts too heavy of a load on the system. But not matter how much load I put on my FreeBSD+X.org system, I never get any stutter on the GUI.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:About the whole X Window server by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      I find KDE to be fascinating. Obviously, the developers have *far* better graphics hardware, and *far* faster CPUs than I do. It seems to really like painting stuff. Gnome seems much "lighter" and more careful in that area, and seems faster on lower-end hardware.

      Just an observation - you milage may vary, &etc. And, where it really matters (drawing and space-wise), I use twm.

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    13. Re:About the whole X Window server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem aint with overhead or X priority or whatever. The real problem is that the WM isn't at the layer where it should be.

      But its long to explain from scratch, and I'm tired :P

  38. Come on Taco by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    explain how this belongs in the Linux section.

  39. Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    It allows multihead over the network. This might just be the solution I've been looking for to make all the systems in my house display the same instance of an app on the screen at the same on multiple machines. Imagine running am IM app only once, but seeing it on any machine you happen to be working on. Multicast apps! :)

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't think it'll work this way.

      It looks like the standard usage for DMX will be to have multiple monitors, each connected to their own computer, making up a single multi-screen display.

      Currently, I have two monitors connected to my computer at home; one is plugged into an Nvidia AGP card, and the other is plugged into an old Permedia2 PCI card. If I wanted 3 or more monitors, I'd really be hurting for PCI slots.

      With DMX, I could have two separate computers next to each other, each plugged into its own monitor. But with DMX set up, the two monitors will look just like my current dual-monitor Xinerama setup: like one workspace. I can move my mouse between the screens, move applications back and forth, etc. DMX should allow the same, even though physically the hardware will be connected to multiple CPUs, and applications will be using the X protocol to pass the data across the network.

      The only problem I see with this is that it's slower than having multiple video cards in one computer, since you have to pass a lot of data over the network. The full power of this concept will only be realized if the multiple computers are also clustered, so that they can share the process load, rather than having to rlogin to multiple computers to run your applications.

    2. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 1

      You could do that with VNC anyway, yes? IIRC it allows multiple connections to the same server.

    3. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... maybe you're right. I was thinking that if I set an app in my Window manager to be displayed on all desktops AND the Xserver that was displaying the DMX "extra heads" over the network was also displaying local apps, I could have:

      1. The system in front of me running it's own apps on the local display
      2. A "meta App Server" displaying the meta apps on the same local display using DMX
      3. Another system system displaying it's local apps and the met apps using DMX once again.

      So it becomes a situation where I could be logged into multiple systems doing local stuff, but also displaying the same exact centralized apps on each of those machines as well.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    4. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I'm using VNC right now to just have a portable desktop at home that I can view anywhere (bedroom, laptop, over the net with SSH, etc...). But, What I'd really like is to be able to "publish" applications using VNC in a rootless mode. That way I could have local apps and remote apps running at the same time. So I could have one instance of an IM client for example running on my app server but displayed in multiple locations at once. However, it wouldn't be an entire desktop that is displayed remotely, just the IM client. And it would mingle with the local apps as well. So far, I've only found one other person who mentioned the idea of a rootless VNC online. I'm sure it will eventually come to pass...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    5. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What you're talking about sounds like it wouldn't be that hard to implement, but there might not be enough demand.

      If you only want one or two applications to do this, it might be possible to modify them directly to simply display simultaneously to multiple X servers, and accept input from any of them as well.

    6. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by codemachine · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this can already be done with the NX protocol or not?

    7. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Good question. I haven't had the time to look at the NX protocol, but I've read about it in the past. Maybe I should take a gander... I really want to be able to publish "meta apps" for home use.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    8. Re:Xdmx Sounds VERY Cool by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I think this may be really the job of the application. The application itself can open many windows, one on each desktop, and it can be it's responsibility to make them all match and update when one of them changes. This would also allow the application, which is really the only thing that knows for sure, do something intelligent if, for instance, two people tried pushing two different buttons at the same time.

  40. Good news for IBM X40 owners by asv108 · · Score: 1

    i810 driver updates * Dualhead support (i830+) * i915 support * New 3D driver (i830+) * i810 driver is now supported for AMD64 This should fix the current hackish method for using video out.

  41. On a related note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will Apple update X11.app to Xorg.app?

  42. I am waiting for the *next* release.. by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    I am waiting on the *next* release, which, as I understand it, will have the GATOS drivers for the various ATI All-in-wonder cards merged in by default.

    What that means is that, out of the box, the ATI Radeon 7500 All-in-wonder will have accelerated 3D, video capture, and TV tuner support.

    The current CVS image has these built in, but as I understood it, they did not want to merge that into this release.

    Of course, for the newer cards (R300 and later) the 3D will still require the ATI FGLRX driver, which does NOT support the GATOS multimedia extensions, but hopefully, when the GATOS stuff is in the main release, then ATI will support it in the next fglrx release thereafter.

  43. Try disabling SBA and FW by linuxkrn · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have a supermicro (7505 chipset) dual Xeon board that supports both SBA and FW. However, when I try to enable SBA/FW I get lockups. I fixed this by disabling them in the modules config. /etc/modules.d/nvidia options nvidia NVreg_EnableAGPSBA=0 NVreg_EnableAGPFW=0 Then run modules-update and reload the nvidia module. You may have to reboot for it to take effect. One thing to note is the new drivers DIDN'T default to off as the older ones had. So some people are seeing fixes just because they downgraded...

  44. No, not dead by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    But it might as well be. Since most everyone has jumped ship at this point.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  45. Which card instead? by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.

    As soon as you tell us what to buy instead. Other than NVIDIA and ATI, neither of which publishes a full register level spec, which video chipsets are available as consumer level video cards sold in Best Buy stores or as part of a notebook computer? Or do you expect us all to buy X11 thin clients instead of video cards?

    1. Re:Which card instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can figure, the answer is: old radeons up to something like 9200, and most graphics chips integrated on motherboards. If you don't mind no 3d acceleration at all, there are 2d drivers for newer radeons and even nvidia cards, but I'm not sure if these do even 2d acceleration.

    2. Re:Which card instead? by LourensV · · Score: 3, Informative

      Help is on the way. TechSource, which makes video cards for air traffic control and medical applications has started work on a desktop/workstation card that will be able to accelerate enough of X.org and OpenGL to be usable. It won't blow your socks off in gaming, but for many users that's not important anyway. More importantly, the specs will be fully open. More information on OpenGraphics.org.

      Oh and yes, it's been mentioned on Slashdot before.

      Join us and help out!

  46. Debian/unstable by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, I'm very dissappointed in Debian/unstable for this. Certainly many other packages are available in unstable, up to CVS and bleeding-edge upgrades. But no X.org.

    I've had some nasty things happen with package dependencies breaking in unstable, so I'm fairly sure they're not holding off because of that.

    1. Re:Debian/unstable by Janax · · Score: 1

      Actually, Ubuntu does have X.org packaged and it works very well. Check http://www.linux.org/news/2004/11/10/0001.htmlhere for details...

    2. Re:Debian/unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not Debian. That's its fork.

    3. Re:Debian/unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my Xconfig says X.org in comments section

    4. Re:Debian/unstable by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      That's because they moved some config options from the X.org config over to the default Debian config.

      I bet the package name still says "XFree86" for you.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    5. Re:Debian/unstable by plumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that right now Debian is preparing for a new 'stable' release (Sarge), so there aren't any huge new upgrades like X allowed to go in.

      Once sarge releases, things will hopefully go back to the craziness we all love.

      You can get a lot of newer packages out of the new(er) 'experimental' repository, but X.org isn't in there.

    6. Re:Debian/unstable by Kethinov · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can compile X.org in Debian just fine. I've done it. Not that it really matters. The hardware accelerated features that X.org is developing are still too new and unstable to be usable at any reasonable level. I'm really not going to care one way or another if Debian gets X.org until GNOME and KDE start doing useful things with cario, glitz, damage, and whatnot. Granted, work on this has indeed started, but until it is usable at at least a beta level, Debian need not waste their time rushing to adopt the X fork. They will. Give them time. The rush work that needs to be done is not at the distro level but at the development level. I want to see GNOME and KDE using nifty hardware accelerated effects. Real transparency built into the terminal and an Expose clone. Then distros can start worrying about packaging X.org.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    7. Re:Debian/unstable by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      That's not Debian. That's its fork.

      Nope. The packages come from Debian and the bug fixes go back to Debian. Its not a fork....just a clean up job.

      Or, as many will know it after its next official release: Debian with Xorg.

    8. Re:Debian/unstable by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      It'll be a flag day when they move, so they're probably putting it off as long as possible.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    9. Re:Debian/unstable by resiak · · Score: 1

      <rant type="regrettable_but_necessary">

      You're wrong: it's a fork, no matter whether or not any fixes are contributed back to Debian and despite even the fact that the packages are Debian-derived. Please stop spreading the myth that Debian-derived distros are equivalent to Debian: they're not. It's particularly irritating for those of us who give up our time to help people on #debian on freenode: when people come and ask for help with Ubuntu, we just can't help, since we don't know that some change hasn't been made that would render our instructions useless, but we receive abuse for being "stubborn".

      </rant>

    10. Re:Debian/unstable by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      debian X development is glacial - often releasing packages 6-9 months after the xfree releases (it's so bad that when I found a bug in DRI in a newly installed X package last year, I reported it and immediately got back a 'why are you using an obsolete version' response!).

      The xorg fork hasn't been in existence long enough for debian to notice it uet...

    11. Re:Debian/unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding the slow pace: Debian is also the only distro that supports X on so many hardware platforms, which puts them in the situation of actually _fixing_ the issues for these platforms.

      Regarding X.org: they are already late for the next new stable release, so I guess it has to wait until Sarge is out (and I personally would rather have sarge out for my servers now than waiting a few month for X.org to stabilize). It'll be interesting to see if they will have a faster release cycle due to a greater responsiveness from the X.org team

    12. Re:Debian/unstable by geggo98 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to try X.org on debian, just add Ubuntu to your sources.list (details here) and intall the packet xserver-xorg.
      You could also compile it from source and install it under /usr/local/ (details here)

    13. Re:Debian/unstable by Puggs · · Score: 1
      I want to see GNOME and KDE using nifty hardware accelerated effects. Real transparency built into the terminal and an Expose clone. Then distros can start worrying about packaging X.org.

      The Expose clone is skippy or expocity, and I presume, given time (and coders) X.org will have real transparencies, as a default (and stable) option.

      Seeing as skippy is NETWM compliant, also it is fairly safe to presume it too will also get real transparencies at some point

    14. Re:Debian/unstable by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      X.org has real transparency right now. The problem is GNOME and KDE haven't integrated it into their programs yet. To get a real transparent terminal, you have to make the WHOLE window transparent with transset. Desktop envs need to start taking advantage of this stuff asap.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    15. Re:Debian/unstable by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      real transparency is in kde 3.4 iirc (3.4 beta 2 is out now)

  47. Re:Debian? Sarge isn't an excuse by Lauwenmark · · Score: 1

    It is quite understandable why XOrg will not get into Sarge - requirements of portability and stability aren't met and will require lots of work. Yet I cannot restrain myself of thinking: I always hear about Sarge, but what about the unstable branch of Debian ? I still don't get why Sarge would require unstable to be frozen like that - and in fact, it isn't the case for most of the other packages.

    Sarge is indeed a good excuse for the Debian XSF to be late, but it is starting to become a little overused. Initially, the position was something in the lines of "Debian will not start working on integrating XOrg before Sarge is out". And at that time, it made sense.

    The problem is that the expected date release of Sarge was pushed back over and over. The Debian X Strike Force was IMHO quite slow at reacting to the upcoming of XOrg. The draft of the consensus reached is dated 15th August. Fine - but when checking the subversion repository of the XSF, you see that it was initiated at the end of September. Little also seem to have changed since the end of October.

    Now, I understand that the top priority of the Debian XSF is to iron out bugs for Sarge - but I don't think it should mean such a long-terme freeze for the unstable branch which is - by definition - unstable. Why keeping the XOrg work aside ? By doing so, it means that another long delay will be required after Sarge is out for it to become available on unstable - and then, people will be *right* when claiming that "Debian is outdated".

    Backporting pieces of code from XOrg to XFree 4.3 as it is currently done only partially solves the fundamental issue - as XOrg matures and evolves, backporting will become more and more difficult to handle. In some case, backporting may even proove impossible. And the development time spent on backports is time that doesn't get into working on XOrg stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is somewhat lacking of future perspective.

    I quite appreciate the efforts made by Debian to maintain such a massive amount of packages - but I more and more get the impression that the Debian X Strike Force lost contact with some of their users and isn't efficient enough to handle the current situation by itself and is a little overusing Sarge as an excuse for some lateness.

  48. Re:Still bloated, still based on dated ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll do you one better: networks are obsolete.

  49. Re:Still bloated, still based on dated ideas by deitel99 · · Score: 1

    You do know that on a local machine that X communication is done via Unix domain sockets right?

    You do know that Unix domain sockets are the defacto IPC method for Unix OSs?

    You do know that network transparency adds no overhead for applications running locally?

    Oh well.

  50. "Client server is slow" myth dispelled, once more by DrWhizBang · · Score: 4, Informative

    With all due respect, you don't really seem to know much on this subject. As I understand it, it is not the client-server model, nor the inefficiency of the X protocol that is at issue here. It is rather a the stagnancy of the x toolkit (which could be blamed on the xfree86 organization, if one likes to point fingers) that has caused this.

    As has been stated in another thread, X11R6 was first released in 1994. No significant changes were made to its drawing libraries before the addition or the render extension (with anti-aliased fonts) by Keith Packard in the 2001/2002 timeframe. In 1994, things that we take for granted like true-colour displays. Windows 95 had not been released - Windows 3.1 was mostly seen in 256 colours!

    As more graphical applications (e.g. web browsers, image viewers) became the norm, and 32-bit colour became common, application writers sought solutions that would allow them the functionality they needed. GTK+ and QT became toolkits that supplied the features that X lacked, at the cost or having to perform client side rendering. This pushes more and more pixels with higher bit-depths through the X protocol to the server. Some solutions were devised for special cases like OpenGL (GLX) and video (Xvideo), but X's core display system did without updates.

    Since the clients now had to push lots of bits through the X protocol to the server, 2D graphics displayed the latency that you describe, even on really fast hardware. In a way, the Render extension seems to have pushed this over the edge since software fallbacks required (esp. for text) made rendering crawl.

    The solution that the X.org guys have come up with is this: reduce the reading and writing over the X "pipe". There are a few methods that they are using. First is the XFixes extension. This extension supplies some additional functions that were missing in the core protocol - like the ability to address a region. Once this was in place, the Damage extension could be created, which allows the client and server to pass less information back in forth because they can now identify when a region has been damaged and needs to be redrawn.

    The next piece is Composite and the composite manager. Composite allows the server to draw windows into an offscreen region so that the composite manager can redraw them on the screen. By doing this, the composite manager can use the hardware acceleration in the video card to do smooth opaque moves, and additionaly special effects. Theoretically, a composite manager could be written to use OpenGL, which would be really smooth. I can testify, however, that using Composite and xcompmgr on my PC at home is smooth as glass. 32 bit colour, drop shadows, and all the niceties...

    The next step will be Cairo, Glitz, and XGL. I am anxiously waiting for a release of this stuff, because it is way cool.

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  51. I found System V in linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new X.Org release, called X Window System V ersion 11

  52. Xprint updates by jogall · · Score: 1

    Is somewhere a detailed list of updates/fixes for Xprint?

    1. Re:Xprint updates by Sebazzi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Follow http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/ChangeLog?rev=1 .365.2.155&only_with_tag=XORG-6_8-branch&view=mark up, check for commits with "xprint" or "print" in the description.

  53. The relationship between unstable and testing by steveha · · Score: 4, Informative

    I always hear about Sarge, but what about the unstable branch of Debian ? I still don't get why Sarge would require unstable to be frozen like that - and in fact, it isn't the case for most of the other packages.

    It's very simple.

    Debian has three major branches: stable, testing, and unstable.

    The stable branch is treated very carefully. It will get security patches, but otherwise will not be changed. It's a "frozen" release. Most Debian users will run the stable branch on their servers.

    The testing and unstable branches work together and are closely related. The unstable branch is where new packages are checked in. Once the new package has been in unstable for a while and is working out well, it will be auto-migrated into the testing branch.

    And this is the answer to your question: Debian cannot update the unstable branch to X.org without cutting off the testing branch from further updates, or risking that X.org packages might get migrated into sarge by the scripts that update testing. Why would the Debian guys make more work for themselves by doing this?

    All three branches have "code names". The unstable branch is code-named "sid", always. The testing branch is currently code-named "sarge". When sarge is "released", what will happen? First, the current stable branch (code-named "woody") will be retired from the main servers. Second, the servers will be updated to have the sarge packages listed as the stable branch. Third, a new code name will be chosen for the next release, and the testing branch will be named with that code name. (At that exact moment, I guess the testing branch will be identical to the stable branch, but that won't be true for long.) Finally, all the checkins that were held back, waiting for the release of sarge, will start to flood into unstable; this is when you can expect to see X.org in unstable.

    Actually there is a fourth branch of Debian: experimental. You will really see X.org show up in experimental before it even shows up in unstable. Once people have good success with the packages in experimental, the packages will be checked in to unstable. (Just because it is called "unstable" doesn't mean that Debian is completely careless.)

    The problem is that the expected date release of Sarge was pushed back over and over.

    This is just Debian for you. Debian is a loose coalition of volunteers, and their sole goal is to put out a distribution that will be rock solid. They ship "when it's done", not according to some schedule.

    Note that there is any reason you cannot use sarge now. Why wait? It's already very stable. I used to use unstable on my desktops, and that was stable enough for me; testing should be even more stable.

    The Debian X Strike Force was IMHO quite slow at reacting to the upcoming of XOrg.

    The X Strike Force is not a large team, it has a lot of work to do, and what you think of it doesn't really change anything. If you join the X Strike Force and help them get their work done, then I will listen attentively to your opinions, and until then, I'll gently suggest you not complain of their slowness.

    If you want to combine the Debian goodness with the X.org exciting new flavor, I have two suggestions for you.

    First, you can read the discussion here about how to compile your own X.org from the CVS, and set that up on your Debian system. It works so well there is "no need for packages", according to that discussion.

    Also, if you would like everything that is good about Debian but with faster release cycles, you ought to look into Ubuntu. Ubuntu is committed to a new version every six months, and their next release (due to release in April 2005) already has X.org checked in. I'm using that to type this message. It's definitely not as stable as the released version of Ubuntu from October 2004 but I can deal with it and I like th

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  54. Re:"Client server is slow" myth dispelled, once mo by vivek7006 · · Score: 1

    This was really informative. Thanxs

  55. A Config tip by srobert · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just installed Slack 10. I discovered that if I rename my old XF86Config to xorg.conf, it works. It was just a lucky guess on my part that this would function.

    1. Re:A Config tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our doin'-the-obvious-thing-with-the-conf-file-name overlords. :)

    2. Re:A Config tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xorg 6.8.0 (possibly .1 and .2 too, not sure though) was supposed to use the XFree86 config file if the xorg.conf file didn't exist.

  56. yes, yes. by rmstar · · Score: 1

    Ah, and... fun fact of the day:

    xedit now is extendable through its embeded extension language: a lisp dialect pretty close to common lisp.

  57. Yes, but does it fix this bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  58. FUCK!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have gentoo :(

  59. If you really want X.org in debian: by gehrehmee · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Add:
      Package: *
      Pin: release a=hoary
      Pin-Priority: 50

      to /etc/apt/preferences.
    2. Add:
      # Ubuntu Hoary
      deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hoary main restricted universe multiverse

      to /etc/apt/source.list.
    3. Run:
      apt-get update
      apt-get install grep-dctrl
      cat status | grep-dctrl xorg -F Source -s Package | perl -e 'while (<>) { print; print "Pin: release a=hoary\nPin-Priority: 1000\n\n" }' >> /etc/apt/preferences
    4. Move the paragraph from step 1 to the end of the preferences file. (not sure if this is actually neccesary)
    5. Run: apt-get upgrade
    6. Hope it all works well. Did I mention I don't take responsibility for any breakage this causes? :)

    When all is said and done, these steps tell apt where to get ubuntu packages from, then tell it not to install any them, then tells them to make an exception for the Xorg packages, treating them just like they were regular debian packages.

    You'll also have the option of installing any software in ubuntu that's not in debian yet, and all of the potential breakage that implies.

    --
    "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    1. Re:If you really want X.org in debian: by erikdalen · · Score: 1

      I'm running that right now. works like a charm.

      Even have OpenGL running using only opensource drivers (didn't have to modify settings, it just worked). but that is using a radeon 9200, one of the few cards that are supported without proprietary shit.

      only x.org 6.8.1 though

      --
      Erik Dalén
  60. What about even beyond experimental by kjj · · Score: 2, Funny

    I really thing there need to be a fifth branch that even goes way beyond experimental. A tree where just about anything will show up literally a day or two after its release. It could be called the god branch or something.

    1. Re:What about even beyond experimental by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      How about the "I have nothing to do but futz around with bug reports and code all day" branch? :)
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    2. Re:What about even beyond experimental by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      "Broken" sounds like a good name for that...

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    3. Re:What about even beyond experimental by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

      We can call it the "Gentoo" branch. ;)

      --

      The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
      --Aristotle
  61. Apple not first to do GL rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SGI has long had integrated X server and GL rendering. Other Unix vendors had it too to a limited extent with the GLX extension and X drivers which use hardware textures. About the drop shadows: yes, I agree, Apple does a better job. But that is just an example of using the GL rendering. The composition manager isn't part of the X server -- usually it will be part of the window manager. Different desktops will do different things.

  62. S3 Savage DRI yet??? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    I find it frustrating to have to dredge up CVS's from the DRI project and go through the hassles of compiling in order to get 3D acceleration on my laptop's S3 "ProSavage/DDR" chipset.

    It does seem to work, though obviously not all that impressively by modern standards. Anyone know if they've FINALLY folded in the Savage DRI modules into this X.org release? The release notes don't mention it, but I'm hoping...

  63. The reason is the release of Sarge by mr_tenor · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Debian X people cannot change over to X.org until Sarge is released, otherwise Unstable will go bonkers, which will ruin the propagation of bugfixes to Sarge, which will make the release impossible. The focus now is on reducing the Release Critical bug count to as close to zero as possible so the release can happen, after which I seem to recall that X.org will be added to Debian Unstable ASAP.

    So in summary, I hope the people complaining about the slow release of Debian aren't the same ones who keep asking why they aren't massively upheaving their package repositories during the release process :)

  64. Calling All developers - Xorg Needs your help! by ShawnX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Xorg needs your help. Be it coding, documentation. Please help out and Hop on irc.freenode.net #xorg-devel if you want to help

    Things to help with:

    Documentation - Doxygenifying the Xlibs, Xserver sources.

    And other things :)

    --
    Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
  65. Re:"Client server is slow" myth dispelled, once mo by jefp · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the history.

    I'm actually tempted to try a port of the plain old sample server included in the X11 distribution, that everyone used to use before XFree86. It would be interesting to see how fast it runs on current hardware. I suspect that for what I do, mainly just xterms and firefox, it would work just fine.

    I used to port the sample server to each new Sun frame buffer and it was quite easy. You just had to find two numbers: the memory address for the start of the frame buffer, and the memory width of each scan line. Took less then an hour for each new architecture.

  66. Does mouse acceleration still suck? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

    Desktop mouse acceleration under X is really bad compared to Windows. On Linux, acceleration is a sort of step function based on a threshold and a scaling factor, while on Windows, acceleration is a smooth exponential-like function... which tends to give a far smoother mousing experience.

  67. Re:Still bloated, still based on dated ideas by Zenikase · · Score: 0

    Yeah, except that everything other than drawing the windows themselves is almost always done client-side nowadays (text, graphics, widgets, window management). What's the point of letting this "feature" continue to fester just because?

  68. X strike force by mr_tenor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, for ages, the X strike force in Debian were the only people who were ensuring that X worked on 11 different architectures (as I'm sure you know everything in Debian needs to). This is a gigantic amount of work!

    1. Re:X strike force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That is why they never considered importing x.org back when it was still so fresh as to nearly be XFree86 4.4. Debian's source tarball is patched up the wazoo. Even though it's versioned 4.3.0, I'm not even sure the *.orig.tar.gz directly maps into an official XFree86 release.

  69. Re:Still bloated, still based on dated ideas by Zoolander · · Score: 1

    In developed countries, where we get reasonable bandwidth for our money, network transparency (if you're going to call other people fucknauts, make sure you spell teh long werdz correctly) is very useful.
    I use it practically every day at work, or when I'm working from home.

    --
    Meep.
  70. XFree86 faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XFree86 4.4.0 seems to me a bit faster than XOrg. It may just be a special case with my system: FreeBSD on a Pentium I 133 MHz /48 MB ram, or are XOrg's new features adding bloat?

  71. I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What with USB working the way it does, where you can chain off as many devices as you feel like, and computers being fast enough to handle all of them at once, it seems to be like it should be possible to do the following:

    Three Users, user zero, one, and two, are sitting in a conference room using a giant screen projector as the monitor, attached to a laptop someone brought. There are three different keyboards and three different mice attached to the laptop as USB devices. Some might even be IR so they are being used from across the room.

    User zero picks up keyboard 0 and mouse 0, uses mouse zero to click on a terminal window and focus it, then uses keyboard 0 to type into it.

    Meanwhile User one sits at keyboard 1 and mouse 1 to demonstrate something on the web using a browser window.

    Meanwhile User two, using keyboard 2 and mouse 2, is making a diagram in openoffice.

    Essentailly, there are three different "input contexts" each one consisting of one mouse and one keyboard, and each has its own mouse pointer, and it's own keyboard focus, and the X server is interleaving thier input events together and dispatching them to the appropriate applications.

    The place where I would have found such a thing useful was a roleplaying game where I had a lot of visual aids on computer, one of which was a map with little tokens players could move to represent themselves on the map (each token was a layer in Gimp) It would have been handy to have public mice for them and my private mouse for me to use on the private GM screen (the laptop's own screen).

    But, it doesn't seem to be possible without writing it myself.... ....hmmm..... I wonder how one goes about learning the X input system....

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    1. Re:I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses by caseih · · Score: 1

      There used to be some ugly hacks to do this with XFree86. I think there's also a patch called the backstreet ruby patch that allows normal X servers to run on multiple terminals each with there own focus. As I understand it the kernel has been limiting this (one console one focus) as well as limitations in the X server. Personally I'd love to see this ability in maintstream distros using some kind of clean solution in the kernel. In a computer lab or any public access area, this would be wonderful.

    2. Re:I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VMware(or your favourite virtual machine)+VNC as the server. Lightweight linux distros+VNC(maybe at most 60 MB of space?).

      You can clone and run identical preconfiged images in the VM, and, on a local 10MBPS lan works like a charm.

      I'm doing this on windows, and i'll leave it as an excercise for the user to find an appropriate VM/OS confugureation for OSX, linux or BSD.

    3. Re:I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses by Xofer+D · · Score: 1

      This is a great idea, and I remember it being the subject of research of Dr. Kori Inkpen in the EDGE lab at my university in this project. I recall one of the main points being that it can be used very well for collaborative play and education for young children.

      --
      The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
    4. Re:I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I could have gotten something like that by just running two X servers. What I'm looking for is two input stations on the SAME windowing area.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  72. OSX.org? by xjerky · · Score: 1

    I wonder when Apple might switch to supplying X.org instead of XFree. I know Xdarwin is now based on it, but it isn't as well integrated as Apple's version. I'd really like to be able to use the transparencies in X that Aqua can on the same system.

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  73. not so fast by schmobag · · Score: 1
    As the owner of a VIA motherboard with integrated prosavage video, let me assure you that Linux 3d acceleration on that hardware is not as seamless as you claim it to be. In fact, it's a bit of a bitch.

    You have to compile a cvs version of X yourself to get the driver. It's so experimental there's not even a Gentoo ebuild for it yet (though it seems to have been in that state for about a year).

    Check these links for the experiences of some people trying to get it to work: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=283208&hi ghlight=savage http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=147440&po stdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100

    1. Re:not so fast by orasio · · Score: 1

      No, you don't.
      It's hard, but not that hard.
      You can download binaries from here:
      http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/Download#head-f3c7 94f007343b969bc570c5dd057212ece700be

      They have regular binaries, that you have to install yourself, or debian packages. I did install the binaries, and am using a hardware accelerated S3 here at work. At home I can't use the integrated S3, because of the nvidia in the AGP slot.
      I agree it's not easy, but it's not compiling X.org, either.

  74. Linux? by cepler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why the Linux: title? Is it only released for Linux?

    Wankers...

  75. OS X had composited windowing long ago blablabla.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The next piece is Composite and the composite manager. Composite allows the server to draw windows into an offscreen region so that the composite manager can redraw them on the screen. By doing this, the composite manager can use the hardware acceleration in the video card to do smooth opaque moves, and additionaly special effects. Theoretically, a composite manager could be written to use OpenGL, which would be really smooth.

    [apple fanboi imitation]
    Yawn. OS X has had a composited windowing system (Quartz) since 2000. Using the graphics card and OpenGL? Yawn. See Quartz Extreme.
    [/apple fanboi imitation]

    These kinds of comments always pop up (and get modded Insightful) whenever Microsoft's Avalon is mentioned.

  76. Re:"Client server is slow" myth dispelled, once mo by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

    Very cool.

    Although I can't say I have ported X servers to new platforms, I can tell you it is interesting to play around with the "other" X server at freedesktop.org, here. It is well worth the effort if you are stuck with an ATI card. Don't follow the install directions on the site though - use jhbuild with the "freedesktop" moduleset and the "xserver" module. This is also where the XGL server is.

    Bonus points if you can get openGL working without X, and then XGL running on top ;-)

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  77. Re:OS X had composited windowing long ago blablabl by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

    [apple fanboi imitation]

    Ha! As an Honourary Apple Fanboy (TM), I can appreciate your comment. I have to say though, it is much more fun monkeying around with this kind of stuff on my linux PC with commodity (i.e. not Apple) hardware.

    And it is looking as though the linux/X/freedesktop guys may actually be ahead of Microsoft with this feature, if not Apple.

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  78. [OT] Autonomy Project by ralphclark · · Score: 1

    Hey Jean-Michel,

    I just read your current draft for ep1 of "The Autonomy Project" last week and loved it to bits. Hardest part was getting to the end and realizing I have no idea when the next part will appear. Any plans yet?

    Ralph

    1. Re:[OT] Autonomy Project by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      I just read your current draft for ep1 of "The Autonomy Project" last week and loved it to bits. Hardest part was getting to the end and realizing I have no idea when the next part will appear. Any plans yet?

      Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

      I do have plans for an ep2, but am currently editing ep1 and polishing it up (you probably noticed things were much tighter up through chapter 16, then got kind of crufty thereafter). Once that's finished I'll probably start on Episode 2, which I think will take quite a surprising twist from the very beginning.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    2. Re:[OT] Autonomy Project by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      Can't wait!

      May I suggest a mailing list, so you can notify everyone whenever there's something new there to read.

      Hmm. I wonder if Prof Egan's seen it yet.

  79. Re:The X.Org site sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call bullshit. On the lower left column is the heading "Base Technology". Clicking on the first of those links takes you to an explainations of what X is, and how it works. The rest give even more info.

    The first paragraph from that page reads:
    "The X Protocol was developed in the mid 1980's amid the need to provide a network transparent graphical user interface primarily for the UNIX operating system. X provides for the display and management of graphical information, much in the same manner as Microsoft's Windows and IBM's Presentation Manager."

  80. If you come to think of it, by hummassa · · Score: 1

    It makes perfect sense.
    With each version, the featureset changed. Once the featureset stopped changing, the versions stopped incrementing.
    With each release, the protocol changed. Once the protocol stabilized, the release number stabilized.
    With each sub-release, implementation details and hardware compatibility changes.
    With each sub-sub-release, some hardware types were added, bugs were fixed, some new extensions.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  81. Obligatory Debian rip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Debian hope to include X.org X11R6.8.0 in their stable branch by 2013. All good things take time my friend. :-)

  82. Re:Still bloated, still based on dated ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you grow up, you might work somewhere that owns more than one computer. Then you'll understand.

  83. The window manager is the problem by spitzak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Client/server is not the problem. In many cases it can be much faster because it encourages batching together hundreds or thousands of requests into a single context switch.

    The problem with X is much simpler, but nobody wants to hear it. The problem is the design of having a seperate process that is the "window manager".

    Anybody who has used X for many years will know that the problems with moving and resizing windows have remained pretty much constant despite the fact that the machines themselves have increased in speed 100 times. This obviously indicates that overhead or latency is not at fault. The constant is retrace speed. Monitors now update about the same speed as before. If something is drawn by two different unsynchronized processes, you can see the two parts one retrace interval apart, no matter how fast your machine is. And the window manager means the border and the contents of windows are being drawn by two different processes.

    Proof: try one of those media players that draws everything out to the border. Try resizing them. Ideally, to remove all aspects of window management, put it over an empty part of the desktop, or do all your work overlapping the contents of some other program (ie don't overlap both the borders and contents of another window). Notice that these apps are probably not doing very efficient graphics because they are full of eye-candy, yet seem to resize quicker and better than any other X appliacation.

    How to fix it? The answer is to make the window borders be drawn by the toolkits. Yes, this will result in different window borders by different programs. No, this does not "confuse" the user. Users are confused by bad interfaces, not by different ones.

  84. Base Technology? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Yeah, I saw that, but it certainly wasn't one of the various links I checked out. --I figured, "Base Technology" would send me to a page filled with hyroglyphics and obscure technical references. Like I said; typical geek design flaw.

    To make the page genuinely useful, a simple banner on the main page saying, "The 'X' Unix GUI" would have been enough. Then a "What Is X?" button might also be a good option. Hiding what you are under, "Base Technology" is about intuitive as a strait jacket in a clothing store.

    And I notice I've been modded 'Troll'. All I said was the page was badly designed, my reasons for thinking so, and I asked what the hell X was. That's only a troll for people with low self-esteem. Jeez.


    -FL

  85. Re:"Client server is slow" myth dispelled, once mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > The next step will be Cairo, Glitz, and XGL. I am anxiously waiting for a
    > release of this stuff, because it is way cool.

    And, amzingly useless in, you know, helping to get actual work done.

    What a waste of time and effort. Why don't people focus on real usability, or do some studies that show this eye candy actually helps useability in some way. Not conjecture, real studies.

  86. Re:"Client server is slow" myth dispelled, once mo by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

    Fast redraws, fast scrolling increase my productivity. Sync on vertical refreshes reduces my eye strain. Shadows help differentiate windows and layers. And eye candy makes me more content.

    It's amazing how far common sense goes before one even needs to invoke a "study".

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  87. RTFFAQ by p00ya · · Score: 1

    This section of the X-strike force FAQ explains the plan. The linked thread contains your answer, but my summary sees: some technical refactoring issues and some license issues.

  88. link is broken by sco_is_for_babies · · Score: 1

    First off, remove space from link: http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R6.8.2/doc/radeon.4 .html Sure enough, it says 2D only, for all the recent Radeons! R300 Radeon 9700PRO/9700/9500PRO/9500/9600TX, FireGL X1/Z1 (2D only) R350 Radeon 9800PRO/9800SE/9800, FireGL X2 (2D only) R360 Radeon 9800XT (2d only) RV350 Radeon 9600PRO/9600SE/9600, M10/M11, FireGL T2 (2D only) RV360 Radeon 9600XT (2d only) RV370 Radeon X300, M22 (2d only) RV380 Radeon X600, M24 (2d only) R420 Radeon X800 (2d only) R423 Radeon X800 PCIE (2d only) Now I'm confused. Is this driver something that "comes with" Xorg 6.8.2? Or is it the same driver I would have gotten by visiting ATI's site: http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html and selecting Xorg 6.8 there? Though I don't recall, I'd be shocked if I didn't download the driver from ATI's site, and it was slow... Surely there is a linux driver out there that supports recent ATI cards with 3D support?!?

    1. Re:link is broken by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      The space is automatically placed by slashcode to prevent robotic shenanigans, I believe.

      If you look back, open video drivers have ALWAYS lagged months or years behind the hardware releases, it takes a long time for the developers to figure out how to access the new functions of the cards. I've been using XFree86 since the 3.2 days and I always knew that you could never run it on cutting-edge hardware. Hell, it used to be worse than not having 3D, a lot of new cards back then PLAIN WOULDN'T WORK.

      As for what I linked to, those are the open drivers included with xorg, they are the drivers produced by and for the x.org community. ATI's drivers are something else altogether, and support 3D in the newer cards.

      You still can do 3D on the "2D only" cards, it'll just be dirt slow because it's emulated. You'll get better 3D performance from an ancient Rage 128Pro than an X800, but the 9200 will give you the best open-source 3D experience right now.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails