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."

Comments

Ati Drivers

[espergreen]

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

Re:Ati Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

>> 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?"

Changelog

[BinLadenMyHero]

Dear Taco,

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

Why is this under "Linux"?

[MondoMor]

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

Re:Xgl

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:So is Xfree86 dead?

[RealAlaskan]

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.