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."
Is it being actively maintained or developed?
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?
I wonder if Ati users will have to wait another 6 months to get 6.8.2 support.
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
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.
Develoment has started on anew x server called xgl, whihc is opengl accelerated. When will wew see that supported in major distros?
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.
This announcement means nothing without a changelog
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.
This is actually a little faster on my 500mhz intel system! And who said code get's slower as it ages?
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/
Why do we need the .org in the product name? Oh yeah, ICANN is approving so many TLDs it's getting confusing.
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.
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.
here is a mirror http://mirrordot.org/stories/63d72f637743d71a6cfd0 1e6d95be129/index.html
Dear Taco,
Please post a link to a summary of changes when anouncing the release of a new version of any software.
is for the nvidia (from nvidia) driver to not lockup under Gentoo. Unfortunately, I guess nobody has found the reason for that happening yet.
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.
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.
Now maybe some of the "Linux fonts are awful" trolls will stop.
I am trolling
I guess the BSDs still don't count on /.
do() || do_not();
This applies to a broad range of OSes. It has very little to do with Linux directly.
cool, but will it run Linux?
What happened to those guys? David Dawes' crusade finally just peter out? Does anyone else still use XFree?
This guy is way out there
How about Xgl, the port of X to OpenGL HW/SW?
--
make install -not war
"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...
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.
can someone explain simply ?
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
It's exactly the same in X.org, as I pointed before.
Drop shadows and the like are the domain of a Window Manager, not X.
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.
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).
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.
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.
:-P
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.
-Uberhund
Must be bad karma I have been running the Nvidia driver, not "nv", under Gentoo for many months. Hasn't locked on me once.
I'm wondering, why xprint isn't deprecated by now?
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
explain how this belongs in the Linux section.
This guy is way out there
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
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.
When will Apple update X11.app to Xorg.app?
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.
www.eFax.com are spammers
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...
But it might as well be. Since most everyone has jumped ship at this point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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?
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.
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.
I'll do you one better: networks are obsolete.
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.
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...
The new X.Org release, called X Window System V ersion 11
Is somewhere a detailed list of updates/fixes for Xprint?
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
This was really informative. Thanxs
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.
Ah, and... fun fact of the day:
xedit now is extendable through its embeded extension language: a lisp dialect pretty close to common lisp.
Does it fix this fatal XFree/XOrg infinite loop bug?
i have gentoo :(
Package: *
Pin: release a=hoary
Pin-Priority: 50
to
# Ubuntu Hoary
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hoary main restricted universe multiverse
to
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" }' >>
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
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.
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.
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...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
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:
....hmmm..... I wonder how one goes about learning the X input system....
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....
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
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."
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
Why the Linux: title? Is it only released for Linux?
Wankers...
[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.
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...
[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...
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
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."
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
Debian hope to include X.org X11R6.8.0 in their stable branch by 2013. All good things take time my friend. :-)
When you grow up, you might work somewhere that owns more than one computer. Then you'll understand.
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.
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
> 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.
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...
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.
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?!?