Slashdot Mirror


New, Modularized X Window Release Now Available for Download

By Leon Shiman, X.org -- X11R7.0 is the first release of the complete modularized and autotooled source code base for the X Window System. It is the first major version release of the X Window System in more than a decade. X11R6.9, its companion release, contains identical features and uses the exact same source code as X11R7.0, but uses the traditional imake build system. (Read the rest of the announcement below) These changes in source code management, which give openness and transparency to the source code base and employ current technology, invite a new generation of developers to contribute, building on the long tradition of the X Window System. The new modular format offers focused development and rapid, independent updates and distribution of tested modular components as they are ready, freed from the biennial maintenance release timetable.

X11R6.9 is comprised of many distinct components bonded in a single tree, based on imake. X11R7.0 splits that set of components into logically distinct modules, separately developed, built, and maintained by the community of X.Org developers. This simultaneous release gives a transition point for developers, builders, and vendors to adapt their practices to the new X.Org modular process.

X11R7.0 supports Linux and Solaris at this time, with other support pending. X11R7.1, the first modular roll-up release, is scheduled mid-2006. While the monolithic tree will continue to be fully supported and released, new feature development is expected to concentrate on the modular code base.

The X11R7.0 and X11R6.9 releases are the work of more than fifty volunteer contributors worldwide, working under the release management team of Kevin Martin (Head), Alan Coopersmith, and Adam Jackson, with the support of Red Hat, Sun Microsystems, and the unsupported, generous contribution of effort by Adam Jackson.

All X Window System Releases are available from ftp.X.Org and mirror sites worldwide (see http://wiki.x.org/Mirrors). They are distributed under the MIT ("X") License by the X.Org Foundation LLC. Information concerning organization, activities, and mailing lists can be found at www.X.Org. Membership is free and open to contributors. Sponsorship is encouraged to support the global activities of the X.Org Foundation. Current X.Org Sponsors include Sun Microsystems, HP, IBM, StarNet Communications, AttachmateWRQ, Hummingbird, and Integrated Computer Solutions Incorporated [ICS].

In continuous use for over 20 years, the X Window System provides the only standard platform-independent networked graphical window system bridging the heterogeneous platforms in today's enterprise: from network servers to desktops, thin clients, laptops, and hand-helds, independent of operating system and hardware.

* LINUX is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. "Solaris" is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. All company names are trademarks of their registered owners.

-------------------

Have an important announcement or article to share with Slashdot readers? Send the complete article (or a proposal) to roblimo (at) slashdot (dot) org.

456 comments

  1. Something you won't see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This linux-related article is a stub. You can help Slashdot by expanding it.

    1. Re:Something you won't see here... by Dragoonmac · · Score: 2, Funny

      ''SD:NPOV''
      Clear Linux Bias, see the talk page before editing...

      --
      Shots: A Populist Parable
    2. Re:Something you won't see here... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 0

      -1, Flamebait? Yeesh....

      "There is no sin except mismoderation." -Oscar Wilde

    3. Re:Something you won't see here... by CapnGrunge · · Score: 1

      What to think? 70% of moderators have either:
          - Not read uncyclopedia and didn't get the joke.
          - Read uncyclopedia and vandali[sz]ed or blanked articles.
          - No sense of humor when they get to be the subject of the joke.

      --
      I see 57005 people
  2. In other news by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Xfree86 continues their self-imposed slide into obscurity.

    1. Re:In other news by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention their homepage now talks more about donating money to them than anything else. As if there were any reason to give them money anymore. That's just sad.

      Oh wait, they just released 4.5 and they say "it's just terrific"! Wow! I can't wait to try it in all those obscure Linux distributions that still use it (because they still haven't noticed X.org yet)!

    2. Re:In other news by hitmark · · Score: 1

      well they made a tactical error that forced a fork and x.org is the result.

      some may claim its survival of the fittest or evolution at work. maybe, maybe not. but as long as x.org maintains compatiblity with the Xwindows standard, and it developed under a open source model, i for one is happy.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:In other news by Red+Warrior · · Score: 5, Funny

      some may claim its survival of the fittest or evolution at work.

      Really, I thought it was about intelligent design.

      --
      "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
      ~Epictetus
    4. Re:In other news by hitmark · · Score: 1

      in this case, maybe it is ;)

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is one of those rare cases where it's both. ;)

    6. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorta, but the X.org people are the original X11 guys. XFree86 was an offshoot from the original X11 many moons ago.

    7. Re:In other news by Nighttime · · Score: 5, Interesting
      What I find highly amusing is their list of distros carrying XFree86, which hasn't been updated since March 15 2005.

      BSD-style based distribution

      • NetBSD® Runs on practically everything; highly scaleable. (Offers X.org along with XFree86 in 2.x)
      • FreeBSD® Yahoo uses it. Hotmail still might. (Uses X.org as of 5.3)
      • MirOS BSD a new NetBSD/OpenBSD hybrid.

      Linux® based distribution

      • Conectiva Brazilian-based distro with a world-wide following using RPMs. (Absorbed into Mandriva, uses X.org)
      • Lycoris Desktop L/X a desktop friendly environment for novices with Bitstream fonts. (Bought by Mandrake)
      • Magic Linux when native Chinese-support is desired using ISOs. (Migrating to X.org)
      • OneBase Linux a meta distribution. (Offers X.org along with XFree86)
      • OpenNa Linux when security matters.
      • Peanut Linux when size matters. (now aLinux, uses X.org)
      • Plamo Linux best for native Japanese support; Slackware based.
      • Rubyx Linux object-oriented ruby is its scripting language. (Now Heretix, uses X.org)
      • Source Mage a source-based distro aimed at linux magicians (sys admins) with a social contract. (Offers X.org along with XFree86)
      • Sorcerer Linux a source-based distro aimed at linux wizards (sys admins).
      • Yoper Linux highly usable, with a KDE 3.3 customised desktop (Migrating to X.org)

      I think we need to drop them an e-mail suggesting that the page needs updating :)

      --
      I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
    8. Re:In other news by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's "X Window", not "Xwindows"

      sorry

    9. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was intelligent design, why is there so many stupid design decisions?
      Well maybe it was just designed to make it look that way.

    10. Re:In other news by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is, if anyone but David is working on XFree86. And yes, David did put his foot in it in a real big way.

    11. Re:In other news by Scott+Byer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's not a System named X Windows, but a Window System named X.

      So it's either the "X Window System", or for short, X.

      --
      > cat ~/.signature | grep -v bullshit

      >

    12. Re:In other news by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      We're talking about X-Windows here. I can assure you that it is completely devoid of any sort of intelligent design.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    13. Re:In other news by MattBurke · · Score: 1

      That really is a pathetic list :)

      The main strangth of it of course is FreeBSD which "oh look" hasn't run XFree86 by default for something like 3-4 years... ;) I also have serious doubts that NetBSD are still using XFree86 and what the hell is MirOS? :)

    14. Re:In other news by m94mni · · Score: 1
      I think we need to drop them an e-mail suggesting that the page needs updating :)

      Well, every few months or so I pick one of the distributions listed here, check if they really use Xfree86 (they usually don't) and send them a mail pointing out that their name is used in XFree86 marketing. The distro name usually disappears a few weeks after....

    15. Re:In other news by DrXym · · Score: 2, Funny

      Xfree86, Emacs & Hurd demonstrate there are right ways to run a community project and terribly, terribly wrong ways.

    16. Re:In other news by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      I also have serious doubts that NetBSD are still using XFree86

      Yes, the version of X in the NetBSD source tree is still XFree86. This is because many platform specific changes have been made to the X code in the NetBSD tree, many of which had not found their way back into XFree86 before the X.Org fork. Getting the changes back into X.Org will become increasingly difficult as the code evolves, although much of it is localised into X server code that's unlikely to be receiving much attention from the X.Org guys, so fingers crossed ...

      That said, many people are running X.Org on NetBSD, installing it via pkgsrc. I've done just that on my main machine, an i386 laptop, while my "fun" machines such as a Vax, SGI Indy and SparcStation run the default XFree86 (or no X at all in the case of the Vax).

    17. Re:In other news by octopus72 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately move to X-org changed that a bit. Many efforts to repair mistakes from the past are undergoing in that project. As I read related mailing lists regularly, I can tell. Examples: xevie, xcb, xserver, exa, Xgl (experimental), DRI graphic memory management, mesa OpenGL improvements (related in some way to graphic memory management), legacy VGA administration efforts, etc.

    18. Re:In other news by Kissing+Crimson · · Score: 1

      MirOS: runs great for a while, then crashes into the ocean. Must use some M$ code...

      --
      What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
  3. New developers by lordofthemoose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to admit that it's something I'm welcoming. The autotools are hard enough to learn, having to figure out imake on top of that was a bit of a hassle. Add to this the fact that it's now modular -we can work on different bits much more easily- and it's a winner...

    1. Re:New developers by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The autotools are hard enough to learn

      Sounds to me that there should be something better than imake and autotools. Something that can be easily applied to any digital project, not just codebases. Something that makes it easy for a person to have their own personal fork that keeps track of what files in the original tree the changed files are based off of and can notify the person of changes to the original project's files, so that improvements can quickly be assimilated across all forks. Anybody else have their laundry list?

    2. Re:New developers by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The autotools are hard enough to learn

      Yeah, but they work just wonderful if you want portability to something more than just different Linux distros. Any problems tend to stem from third-party sabotage (for example, Debian source packages mangle timestamps at patch time).

      The problem is, you need to be able to edit files using an insane slew of languages. Each of the autotools uses a different one, and in the case of autoconf, you have a weird combination of m4 and sh.

      having to figure out imake on top of that was a bit of a hassle.

      Oh right, imake is a living proof that you can get a lot worse.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:New developers by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      ^ is already taken by bitwise XOR

      --
      -mkb
    4. Re:New developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well worth a read:
      excellent article

      However, I've yet to meet a cross-platform build system I didn't hate.

    5. Re:New developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh right, imake is a living proof that you can get a lot worse.

      Actually I'd say that imake is a pretty dead horse for a decade by now.

    6. Re:New developers by strider44 · · Score: 1
      which I can't believe he hasn't seen, since it's the easiest and fastest way to swap two integers:
      int a = 1;
      int b = 2;
      a ^= (b ^= (a ^= b));
      // a = 2, b = 1;
    7. Re:New developers by Q2Serpent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any modern distributed version control system?

    8. Re:New developers by otomo_1001 · · Score: 1

      Only for those old and busted compiled languages!

      A la ruby:
      weezer$ irb -Ku
      irb(main):001:0> a,b = 1,2
      => [1, 2]
      irb(main):002:0> puts "a = #{a}, b = #{b}"
      a = 1, b = 2
      => nil
      irb(main):003:0> a,b = b,a
      => [2, 1]
      irb(main):004:0> puts "a = #{a}, b = #{b}"
      a = 2, b = 1
      => nil

    9. Re:New developers by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      That isn't the fastest way to swap two integers, even for C. It has more operations than simply using a temporary register and is harder to optimize, not to mention being more confusing to read. Don't ever do that in a program.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:New developers by strider44 · · Score: 1
      Why do you say that? In assembler it takes the same amount of instructions (with a, b and c substituted in for the registers):
      xor $a, $b
      xor $b, $a
      xor $a, $b
      compared to
      mov $c, $a
      mov $a, $b
      mov $b, $c
      and takes one less register which could mean a great deal in many programs. It's easy enough to write in comments next to it that you're swapping the two integers. From looking at gcc things are a bit strange when getting into optimisations - it's inconsistant depending on which optimisation you use but that may be my fault of my methodology. Of course I shouldn't have quoted that as a rule since the best way also depends on the context that it's used in.
    11. Re:New developers by chrish · · Score: 1

      The xor swap trick is only useful on horrible register-starved CPU architectures that should've been retired a decade or more ago...

      (Note that current horrible CPU architectures have loads of registers internally and do some magic to compensate for legacy code that works hard to only access a couple of registers.)

      --
      - chrish
    12. Re:New developers by Xoder · · Score: 1

      While it uses the same number of instructions xor tends to take a lot less time than mov, because those movs have to go to and from memory, while the xors tend to stay within the registers. This is possible to avoid if you hand-tweak, of course, but again, many architectures are very register-poor (*cough* x86 *cough*), and if you're hand-tweaking register-swapping, don't you have something better to do? ;-)

      --
      The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
    13. Re:New developers by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The Intel archetechture has a swap instruction, or rather XCHG

    14. Re:New developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. It's been my experience that the only reason for the autotools is portability of code between Linux distros. Or maybe that's just inept "hackers" who assume that every POSIX and POSIX-like operating system uses tools that look like, work like, and are called like the GNU versions they're familiar with.

  4. Fully Modular by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What does this mean for me as an end user?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Fully Modular by nitehorse · · Score: 5, Informative

      When a vulnerability is found in libXpm, you won't have to download 15MB of fonts for the update to the library.

      Also, drivers will now be released completely independently of the server. So you won't have to wait months for a new driver for your card; maybe a couple of weeks at most.

    2. Re:Fully Modular by squoozer · · Score: 4, Informative

      AIUI at this stage not much really. In fact you could probably go as far as to say nothing. It does mean, though, that in the future it will be much easier to add new features and generally work on the code.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    3. Re:Fully Modular by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Just wait for the first security hole.

      The last time X packages had to be updated, security.debian.org got hammered down to a crawl. Now, you will be able to download just the module that changed.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Faster and easier developement from which you will benefit
      - It will be easier for you and/or your distributions to only update parts of X, for example drivers.

    5. Re:Fully Modular by Spaceman40 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It means that it's easier to hack on, which means that new features should be easier to code, which means that they should come to the end user faster and with less bugs.

      Emphasis on the shoulds.

      Basically, this is a clean-up for the devs, which helps the end users indirectly.

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    6. Re:Fully Modular by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It means that X is now even more like Linux. Why we need an entire operating system for a graphical interface is beyond me. But then again, some people find they need an entire operating system just to edit text so I guess it's just a case of running whatever the hell is available.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Fully Modular by mikek3332002 · · Score: 1

      just imagine if it was /.ed at the same time

    8. Re:Fully Modular by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 0

      What does this mean for me as an end user?

      In practicality? Nothing. Anyone in end-user land will be using prepackaged distros with auto installs that set it all up automatically, and almost all such distros have moved or are moving to X.org.

      For those that still "roll your own" with Linux, it may mean something, but X11 is moving more and more out of the main stream and into the non-user and highly geek distros only -- and even there, I know many Debian users, for example, who are eager to switch to X.org.

    9. Re:Fully Modular by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      some people find they need an entire operating system just to edit text

      I whole heartedly agree! A Real Men doesn't need some wimpy operating system to commmunicate with hardware. Hell, a Real Man doesn't even need a text editor. He just etches his source straight to the hard drive platter with a bic pen.

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    10. Re:Fully Modular by belmolis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not having to deal with imake will make any hackers you know who build or work on X a lot less irritable.

    11. Re:Fully Modular by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Knowing how much of a bitch it is to maintain packages from experimental, I think Ubuntu is the distro that's going to get hammered. They were one (if not the only one) of the major distros that was offering Xorg 7.0 for testing during its development via Dapper.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    12. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this *is* x.org we're talking about here...

    13. Re:Fully Modular by lindi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Fully modular" immediately reminded me of "The X-Windows Disaster" which has a chapter titled "X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster".

    14. Re:Fully Modular by dancpsu · · Score: 1

      I was hoping it meant that the X applications survived on their own so that if the X server ever died, it wouldn't take all the apps with it.

      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
    15. Re:Fully Modular by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seem to have missed the point. I was refering to EMACS.. an entire operating system running on top of another operating system just to edit text. X is similar, it has device drivers and schedulars and a network layer.. We run X as root and give it intimate access to the hardware that no userland program should have.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    16. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be better off using binary diffs.

    17. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's the new acceleration architecture called "EXA" (which I guess will replace XAA eventually)... which I think is worth mentioning.

      I've been using it with a Radeon 9200 card since 7.0.0 rc2, and I haven't had any problems. I can use translucent windows with no slow down at all. Translucent windows with XAA on the same machine is horribly slow.

      I can play a DVD while browsing with a 75% translucent firefox window on top of it. No problems at all. Scrolling is very smooth. This is on a Mac Mini, btw.

      Only ATI r100/r200 cards seem to be supported at the moment, though...
      http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ExaStatus

    18. Re:Fully Modular by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      "But then again, some people find they need an entire operating system just to edit text".

      Nah Emacs is so old and overated.

    19. Re:Fully Modular by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Funny
      Nevermind my other post then. :-)

      Emacs popped in my mind immediately but I assumed you were refering to grandma using ms works and aol.



      Well when is X going to be ported to emacs then? :-)

    20. Re:Fully Modular by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      Any X client app that dies when a remote X server dies is poorly written and should never be put into use.

    21. Re:Fully Modular by McCarrum · · Score: 4, Funny

      Run. Run Now. I'll try to hold them off for as long as I can ..

    22. Re:Fully Modular by temojen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully it'll also mean we can install X client software on a server without also needing to install an X server and fonts too (kind of useless waste of space when you don't have a monitor, keyboard or mouse on the machine)

    23. Re:Fully Modular by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      And unless they synchronize their releases, also expect a GNOME-like dependency hell trying to build it all.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    24. Re:Fully Modular by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 1

      No, I got the point; Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping and all that. Your references were a bit oblique and so I saw an opportunity to be a smart ass. Judging by the +4 Funny I've currently got I was right.

      A very bloated text editor that an embedded Lisp certainly doesn't even come close to an operating system. A web browser and news reader an OS does not make. (Though if you can point me to a bootable GNU/Emacs I'd be really quite interested.) As far as X goes, unless I'm mistaken, such low level access is what makes X run on a lot of OSes and a lot of hardware. They either act as their own hardware controller for video cards or hope and pray that the kernel developers for every system X runs on impliments the drivers for cards when they ask.

      If any of the above is wrong, please correct me. It's the only way I'll learn.

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    25. Re:Fully Modular by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The flip side of the coin is to put everything into the Linux kernel... and then X will only be usable under Linux.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    26. Re:Fully Modular by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe I have it screwed up.

      Doesn't X11 refer to the OLD X server and X.org refer to the new one that used the X11 code, but didn't have the licensing problem many people had issues with?

    27. Re:Fully Modular by cortana · · Score: 3, Informative

      This has been true for years! Please stop spreading FUD.

    28. Re:Fully Modular by cortana · · Score: 1

      apt-get install gnome... not too hard...

    29. Re:Fully Modular by cortana · · Score: 1

      No. X11 is a protocol. You are probably thining of XFree86? Xorg is the fork of XFree86 that everyone has migrated to.

    30. Re:Fully Modular by cortana · · Score: 1

      Please tell me which X clients of yours don't use libX11.

    31. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! Translucent windows with no slowdowns at all?? It'll change the world!

    32. Re:Fully Modular by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      Ten years ago I built an rapid application development framework to build application-specific GUIs based on X primitives for vertical markets. I've been improving it since then. It's at viewtouch.com The apps that are built with this don't die when the X server dies. They're mostly point of sale GUIs. I can't remember the last time an X server died, though. If X client apps were vulnerable to this the whole X thing wouldn't be worth much. Thankfully X client apps are not vulnerable to this and X is a unique & valuable way to build vertical market solutions with network GUIs. My point of sale engine, including the development framework is only about 3 Mb. It helps a great deal, by the way, if the GUI is rendered and not built out of bitmaps that have to be constantly flying around the network.

    33. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A web browser and news reader an OS does not make."

      I know you don't care, but if you're going to use that fronting-of-the-focus grammar, you've got to put the auxiliary verb in the second position. The first is "a web browser and news reader", so it should be "a web browser and news reader does not an OS make".

    34. Re:Fully Modular by temojen · · Score: 1

      On what distribution? Most I've seen, any package that needs X libs depends on Xorg or XFree86. So while you could just copy the libraries, if you're using any package management system you're likely to have to install a full-blown X.

    35. Re:Fully Modular by cortana · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well I can't sepeak for apparantly moronised distributions such as the ones you have used, but on Debian, X clients depend on libX11. This is entirely separate from the X server (xserver-xfree86).

    36. Re:Fully Modular by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      None.

    37. Re:Fully Modular by wasabii · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On Debian X has been built as a large tree, but torn apart and packaged into modules, for a long time. I believe this is true about RH too.

      xfonts-base, xfonts-75dpi, xserver-xfree86, few more.

      What they've done now is break apart the upstream source.

    38. Re:Fully Modular by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Isn't that a given? I'm sure Gentoo has nightly versions of Linux 2.6.15 as well.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    39. Re:Fully Modular by jZnat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you implying that wasn't the point of XEmacs? Uh oh, I've been using that terribly wrong for ages now...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    40. Re:Fully Modular by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, linux got its start as Linus's project to edit text.

    41. Re:Fully Modular by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      The source breakdown is an idea whose time has come. Now, in order to build a new mouse or video driver, you don't have to have a local and entirely compiled copy of the X11 source tree to pull the various libraries and headers from due to the way Imake handled things.

      It was very painful to make X updates for a long time. This will help a lot.

    42. Re:Fully Modular by jesboat · · Score: 1

      Nah, only weekly ones.

    43. Re:Fully Modular by nitehorse · · Score: 1

      Now, c'mon, that was kinda cheap.

      The set of dependencies for X is pretty well-known at this point and not likely to change anytime soon.

      And there's already a script which will build the entire set of apps, libs, drivers, and the server for you with one command, not to mention jhbuild support; I don't see X being difficult to build in the future.

      It'll certainly be no more difficult than hacking out a host.def for imake and setting a whole bunch of poorly-documented keyword variables. And in most cases, it'll be a *lot* less painful. Plus, now apps can depend on the proper versions of libraries, which has been problematic before; it's historically been very difficult to query (in the build system) exactly *what* version of X is installed, and which libraries are included, and what extensions are supported. That's all in the past now.

      Not to mention the decoupling of the driver release cycle. Hooray for being able to get new cards working properly sooner, rather than months later!

    44. Re:Fully Modular by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It's not hard because there are dozens of Debian maintainers feverishly working day and night to keep it from breaking.

      Try building GNOME from scratch, just like one of those Debian maintainers. Now compare that nightmare to anything else. Compare it to building KDE, or GCC, or Emacs, or a custom kernel, or X.org, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    45. Re:Fully Modular by sstidman · · Score: 1, Interesting
      And in that chapter he writes the following:

      If you sit down at a friend's Macintosh, with its single mouse button, you can use it with no problems.

      Of course, that Mac your friend is using is running X11, the very thing the article is bashing. I'm sure the article was written before MacOS X, but the statement is now a complete contradiction of his entire argument against X.
      --
      Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
    46. Re:Fully Modular by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Yes, but as is the case with many decisions like this there is usually a tradeoff. With the stability, functionality, and easier development in a modular system comes a sacrifice of speed, RAM usage, lines of code etc.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    47. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Macs do not use X11. Apple distributes an X server you can use for X applications, but native OS X applications do not use this.

    48. Re:Fully Modular by MattBurke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are more operating systems out there running X11 than your favourite RPM-based overly-dependant brand of Linux. Most of them have the sense to distinguish between the need for X client libraries and an X server. I refer to the Free/Net/OpenBSD, Solaris, and AIX servers I have not 10 yards from me now which all happily run X11 apps without having an X server installed. Also I doubt Linux distributions which do things 'properly' like Slackware and Debian would dare install an X server without explicit confirmation although I may be corrected on this latter point.

    49. Re:Fully Modular by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      What distro are *you* referring to?

      On RedHat (RHEL4 ES):

      # ls RedHat/RPMS/xorg-x11-*|wc -l
      18

      So, there are 18 packages for xorg-x11

      # rpm -qlp RedHat/RPMS/xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-23.EL.i386.rpm|gre p -Ev '(locale|.so\..\.0\b|.so\..\b|man\d?\b)' /usr/X11R6/lib /usr/X11R6/lib/X11 /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/XErrorDB /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/XKeysymDB /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb.txt

      So, the lib package consists only of libs, locale data, man page directories (no man pages though), and 3 more files.

      The situation with Fedora Core 4 is almost identical (just 6.8.2 vs 6.8.1 in RHEL4).

      The situation with Mandriva is quite similar:
      # ls /mnt/nas/pub/linux/mandrake/official/2006.0/i586/m edia/main/*xorg-x11-*|wc -l
      16

      (Mandriva doesn't bundle font utils in xorg packages, but in freetype, and ships Mesa in Mesa-* packages, and doesn't ship the "deprecated-libs" packages, so the rest of the package split is very similar).

      # rpm -qlp official/2006.0/i586/media/main/libxorg-x11-6.9-1. cvs20050915.2mdk.i586.rpm |grep -Ev '(\.so\..\.0\b|\.so\..\b|modules/dri)' /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/lib /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/lib/common

      So, Mandriva ships libraries and the dri modules in their lib package.

      This is a good thing, because even on a headless/X-less server, you may need something like libgd, which requires libX11 ...

      Lets not flame RPM-based distros just yet ...

    50. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then maybe you want to make the number agree: "a web browser and news reader do not an OS make".

    51. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?

      Symlinks do not work outside the chroot due to their symbolic nature.

    52. Re:Fully Modular by cortana · · Score: 1

      Although I've not built it from scratch (why would I?), so I haven't used it myself--don't they have this Garnome script which you run, leave for a few hours, and return to your PC to find the latest Gnome environment installed in your home directory? There's also another thing called jhbuild which does the same thing.

    53. Re:Fully Modular by zootm · · Score: 1

      The more sensible solution is to properly modularise and only run the segments which need hardware access with hardware access. This is more of a microkernel-ish design decision — the monolithic kernel of Linux makes it look more like this is running as another "layer", but that may just be necessary.

      I'm not sure whether this new release heralds a move toward this design though (I freely admit knowing nothing about Linux internals), or whether it is just going to be a more componentised design that still requires to be run as one whole.

    54. Re:Fully Modular by po8 · · Score: 1

      Importantly from our point of view, it will mean that you can run an experimental version of some piece of X, such as Xlib, without having to run an experimental version of everything in X.

    55. Re:Fully Modular by leoboiko · · Score: 1

      Like most people, you miss the point about Emacs. It is *not* a text editor. It's a Lisp environment. Close to "an entire operating system", yes, depending on your definition of OS --- but absolutely not "just for editing text". It's for running Lisp applications. It's the closest thing youngsters like me have to a Lisp machine.

      Currently most of my applications are Lisp programs running under the Emacs environment, including my mail client, IRC client, IM clients, my *set* of text editors (including my favourite vi), IDE, psychiatrist, etc, and I love it. Linux is my bootloader.

      --
      Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
    56. Re:Fully Modular by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      It's not hard because there are dozens of Debian maintainers feverishly working day and night to keep it from breaking.

      If it's true that it needs dozens of maintainers on Debian then the package management is poor. In the NetBSD pkgsrc tree, GNOME is maintained largley by one individual. It's much more likely that there's more people willing and able to work on the Debian packages, but I very much doubt that it absolutely requires dozens of them to keep up with GNOME releases. GNOME code has become very clean and portable since the release of version 2.0.

    57. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, yes but it looks to be hard masked at the moment...

    58. Re:Fully Modular by 00lmz · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed from the posts on the OpenOffice.org articles, Mac users hate X because it doesn't integrate well with the system.

      Most OS X users probably don't have X installed and those who do have it installed only have it installed because they need something that only runs on X. Also notice that even if the program runs on X (like OpenOffice.org does), Mac users still demand a "native" port (one that uses the Carbon/Cocoa toolkit).

    59. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source breakdown is an idea whose time has come.

      It's an idea whose time was 15 years ago... only now with xorg are we finally seeing it.

    60. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian has been using xserver-xorg for months now.

    61. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of things about GNOME annoy me. It's sane approach to software engineering dependencies isn't one of them.

      Compare with the KDE big-blob-o-code approach, which makes it hard for developers to work... but easy for those wannabe l33t types who just want to type "./configure;make install" and think they are haxx0rs. I think we know which group you fall into.

    62. Re:Fully Modular by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      That's part of the point right there. Why should you need a full blown script (which itself frequently breaks) when most every other project can get by with a half page README file?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    63. Re:Fully Modular by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > What does this mean for me as an end user?

      Today? Not much. In particular, it doesn't make this version a more compelling download, for an end user. What it does do, however, is pave the way for things to come.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    64. Re:Fully Modular by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was terminal emulator.

    65. Re:Fully Modular by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      I wrote that article you're commenting on. Not only is your premise totally wrong that the X in MacOS X stands for X-Windows ("Of course, that Mac your friend is using is running X11"), but also the conclusion you draw from your mistaken beliefs are totally illogical ("the statement is now a complete contradiction of his entire argument against X"). Complete? Entire? How did you decide that?

      Please press rewind, check your facts, read Logic 101 for Dummies, and try again. Since your facts AND the logic of your conclusions were so off base, I'll give you another chance, and I hope you can come to the correct conclusion that X-Windows totally sucks balls, next time you try to think it through again.

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    66. Re:Fully Modular by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      Please explain the mechanism by which your X application recovers from the server disconnection, and reconnects with the server after it restarts. Does it just keep trying to reconnect until another X server comes up at the same IP address? How do you prevent a hacker from replacing your point of sale terminal with their own computer at the same IP address, and taking over your application? Sounds like an incredibly enormous security hole for a financial application to have.

      Maybe there's a damn good reason other X applications don't behave that way. I hope you don't get sued for developing such an insecure financial system. Where can I see the system in action and test it out myself? Sounds like some lucritive fun!

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    67. Re:Fully Modular by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      Common Lisp's old CLX X11 client library doesn't use XLib. Of course that's why you can't use any X extensions with CLX that depend on other support libraries linking to XLib (like Display PostScript). Non-XLib interfaces to X11 are a dead end, because there's no vendor support for anything but XLib.

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    68. Re:Fully Modular by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      So much to explain, except that you seem to find your own mind so amusing already that I see no point in interrupting your amazement. Forgot to run your spellchecker, eh?

      Here's a starting point for you. http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/118892 Don't try to monitor keystrokes, Don. There aren't any. Is there even sensitive data where the menu app is running? Doh!
      You're thinking "X application" and you haven't yet imagined that you should be thinking "GUI". Why should anyone do anything with an application that can do better with a GUI? The answer is, of course, they shouldn't, but it was asking the right question that was the hard part, if there was a hard part. It didn't seem hard to me. I keep running into people like you who savor the orgastic delight of imparting "You can't do that" to others. What is it with you people, anyway? I don't mind if you think you're very clever. The part I'm having trouble with is the part where you think that when you enter a complex system all you need is an ego and a closed mind. Well, my grandchildren did enjoy those little Sims 'characters' for a while but they're back to playing Diddy Kong Racing. They prefer multi-user software and 3D GUIs.

      I'm not even a programmer except I do a little with the graphical programming environments that I build for various application-specific vertical markets, but I spend my days inventing software paradigms for people who need software tools. Right now I'm real busy separating the software from the hardware and dissolving applications into GUIs. I simply don't respect the limits that you and others accept.

      I guess we all feel bad about the way Dan Turner expressed the frustrations of many with your work in the QuickTime4 GUI but hey, don't take it out on me. I feel your pain, man. I have my own frustrations. Many of my GUI innovation are used everywhere you look but I don't make a dime for 'contributing' them since I didn't patent them and chase people with lawyers. Maybe that was a key dynamic in their universal adoption, though. Funny, that.

    69. Re:Fully Modular by Sketch · · Score: 1

      > The situation with Fedora Core 4 is almost identical (just 6.8.2 vs 6.8.1 in RHEL4).

      Unfortunately the situation is currently worse with the modularized X release candidate in FC5test1. Hopefully that's just for simplicity in getting it up and running and it will be cleaned up before FC5 is released.

      On a similar note, in 3 days of using FC5test1, I also found lots of RPM SPEC files had to be modified because they depended on package names that no longer exist with the modular X11 package set. I believe they introduced some new Provides: when they switched to xorg-x11, but a lot of packages just rely on the package names.

      --
      -- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
    70. Re:Fully Modular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X does suck, Plan B rocks the house! (Don't confuse Plan B with Plan 9)

      Anyway I am a big fan or you and people like you. Including Rob Pike, Ken Thompson and D.R.

  5. Major version release? by Jotii · · Score: 1

    If I understood the article correctly, this version is exactly like the last one, except that it is modularized, and therefore built in a different way. How is this a "major version release"?

    --
    [sig]
    1. Re:Major version release? by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Major Realease only means that there was major code changes to get there...

      Not that there were major new features added

      --
      "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
    2. Re:Major version release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would think that if you were used to getting a cheeseburger by driving to McDonalds, waiting in line, then ordering one, but then one day you were sitting in your office and decided that you wanted a cheeseburger and 50 ninja kangaroos showed up, sliced apart the McDonalds building with their jedi lightsabers and then delivered the parts to your office, inside of which they re-assembled the entire McDonalds and the re-assembled cook prepared a quarter-pounder just for you, that you might consider this a major change in the way you get your cheeseburger.

      Even if the cheeseburger tasted exactly the same as it would have otherwise.

    3. Re:Major version release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this: They call both the monolithic version and the modular builds X11R6.9 and let people guess which is which. That would be fun.

      Although the code for both X11R6.9 and X11R7.0 is the same, X11R6.9 is the last significant release for the monolithic build system and X11R7.0 is the first release for the modular build which is the direction they are taking for the future, it does make sense that they bump up the major version as this is a significant change. I suppose they could have skipped X11R6.9 altogether, as I'm not sure of the point in it myself, maybe it was just because they could and it wasn't much extra work to do.

    4. Re:Major version release? by airlied · · Score: 1

      6.9 was released as a transition, same source different build systems, so you vendors can slowly transisition....

    5. Re:Major version release? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      The previous version was "6.x". The new version is "7.x". Using the word "major" is just a linguistic technicality of version numbers. :)

      Major/minor/update version numbers:
      The digit to the left of the decimal is considered the "major" version while the digit just to the right of the first decimal is the "minor" version. If there is another decimal followed by a digit, that digit is considered the "update" version.

      For instance

      4.8.3 = update version 3 of minor verion 8 of major version 4. Although spoken aloud you'd just say "4 point 8 point 3" of course... ;)

    6. Re:Major version release? by fncll · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time seeing Ninja Kangaroos serving their McD Overlords considering that Mickey used to strip their bones for burgers back in the 70s (I don't care what Mythbusters say, either, I tasted that 'Roo meat back in the day...)

    7. Re:Major version release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did not understand the article correctly. The previous release (the most up-to-date, stable version you could get yesterday) was X11R6.8.2. The consortium has been adding features to today's version for awhile. Additionally, they decided that imake is outdated, so they want to stop using it and move to autotools. There was one release made today, under two versions (X116.9, which uses imake and is monolithic, and X117.0, which uses autotools and is modular).

    8. Re:Major version release? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      This is sorta like complaining that the new version of gcc doesn't have any major new features.

      For most gcc users, this is 100% true; insert valid C code, get a working binary out-- what happens in the middle doesn't matter to them.

      Therefore, the new release of gcc does not have any new features, and there was no reason for a major version number bump.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    9. Re:Major version release? by shinsplints · · Score: 1

      More has changed in version 7.0 than just modularization. The last X.org version was 6.8. The new versions are 6.9 and 7.0. It is not like the last version (6.8), but is identical to the new 6.9 as far as new features and bug fixes are concerned. It is a major release because the build system and structure of the source code changed significantly.

      For the end user, modularization means little at the moment, but should help speed updates in the future.

    10. Re:Major version release? by rob.sharp · · Score: 1

      Genius!

    11. Re:Major version release? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I don't care what Mythbusters say, either, I tasted that 'Roo meat back in the day.

      You got lucky then. That stuff's a lot healthier for you than beef and costs a boatload more too.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    12. Re:Major version release? by jedimark · · Score: 1

      What you talkin about? We can buy the stuff in Woolworth/Coles stupermarkets here, and it costs about the same as regular cow..

      You can always shoot/humanely dissassemble yer own, provided they roam around your neighbourhood.

      The snags (sausages) taste like crap, but the steaks are rather tasty with a little marination.. All that ninja stuff makes them tough little buggers..

    13. Re:Major version release? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      The only place that stocks it near here charges about 20% more than for beef. Not too many roaming the streets these days either - the dropbears tend to take 'em out fairly quickly.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    14. Re:Major version release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would think that if you were used to getting a cheeseburger by driving to McDonalds, waiting in line, then ordering one, but then one day you were sitting in your office and decided that you wanted a cheeseburger and 50 ninja kangaroos showed up ... Ahha, ahha, yes, yes

      i'll have what s/he's smoking

    15. Re:Major version release? by Mancat · · Score: 1

      funniest thing i've seen in a while on slashdot, thanks.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    16. Re:Major version release? by jedimark · · Score: 1

      Fear not.. there's always healthy cat. Most good chinese resturaunts serve it as a chicken substitute.

      Plus you can always scrape them off the bitumen for free.. Even comes pre-tenderized - sometimes even modularized..

      There are plenty of strays around for the picking, just keep yer hands off my kitty cat. I've got a nice recipe picked out, and am just waiting for her to fatten up a bit ;-)

    17. Re:Major version release? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Yeah, have one of those hanging around here. No way I would eat it though - couldn't handle the cholesterol load.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  6. What this means by Jotii · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Am I right in saying this will not make any difference to the end users? Making X module-based seems to greatly simplify coding for developers, but does it have any effect for the end user at all?

    --
    [sig]
    1. Re:What this means by ajaxxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it does. It means you get features, bug fixes and new hardware support as they get developed, rather than waiting for rollup releases every six months or so.

    2. Re:What this means by argel · · Score: 1

      Video drivers will likely see better support since they are modules now too. That means faster bug fixes for existing drivers and a much quicker release schedule for new drivers.

      --

      -- Argel
    3. Re:What this means by Sheetrock · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yes.

      For example, you can now pipe the X.org modules through an MP3 encoder and listen to the only standard platform-independent networked graphical window system bridging the heterogeneous platforms in today's enterprise wherever you go.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    4. Re:What this means by TheDauthi · · Score: 1

      If it makes it easier for the developer to work on, patches/fixes/features should come quicker.

    5. Re:What this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did XHTML make a major difference to the way users say HTML?

      Ok bad example.

    6. Re:What this means by iburrell · · Score: 1
      One big difference is that the special X11 directory, /usr/X11R6 is going away. X programs now install into /usr/bin like everything else, X libraries go in /usr/lib, X data is in /usr/libX11 and /usr/share/X11.

      This can produce incompatibilities since some existing programs are hardcoded to look in /usr/X11R6. They would have broken if they went to /usr/X11R7.

    7. Re:What this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, seems like the X.org crew grew a collective brain.

      I've always hated having an extra directory, having to change the PATH, etc... So much inconsistency just to make sure that when you linked a GUI program, you had to have your nose rubbed into the fact that you weren't programming a pure UNIX app.

      I'm glad it's over. Not that I'm not a huge fan of terminal programs, (I use Vim in PuTTY.exe, just so you know where I'm coming from here), but I've never been fond of that directory.

      Thanks X.org.

    8. Re:What this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucked in the head. I love you, man.

    9. Re:What this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, seems like the X.org crew grew a collective brain.

      A bit harsh, don't you think? It's not like they woke up one day with the realisation of how complicated the existing structure was - this is something they've been working on for years. It's not something that's trivial to change.

    10. Re:What this means by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      I imagine that most distro makers would create a symlink between /usr/X11R6 pointing to /usr, just like they did for a while when various programs were expecting X386, X11, etc. directories.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    11. Re:What this means by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      Effect can also be used as a verb as in effect changes to something.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    12. Re:What this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr Spock wrote books about children. Mr Spock worked on the Enterprise.

  7. Great... by KangKong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    more autotool hell, woohoo.

    1. Re:Great... by Slashcrap · · Score: 2

      more autotool hell, woohoo.

      Did you ever try to build XFree from source? Well, did you?

      I still suffer from a slight nervous tick as a direct result of my last attempt.
      You may think that autotools are hell, but that is only because you have never experienced the inner-most circles of darkness.

    2. Re:Great... by KangKong · · Score: 1

      I've installed X from ports so if that counts then, yes.

    3. Re:Great... by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Funny
      I have a 486 in the corner that's been compiling XFree since 1999.

      Every so often I think about cancelling the job, but then I'd have to go shop for a space heater.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    4. Re:Great... by TTimo · · Score: 1

      Considering build systems like scons and jam, autocrap is already a technology of the past anyway

    5. Re:Great... by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

      Well, I installed LFS once. It was a most rewarding experience. Seriously.

      X took almost one entire day to compile on the Cyrix 686 I had at that time.

    6. Re:Great... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh! I did! I typed `emerge X` and waited a few hours. ; )

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

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

      Hey Sheetrock - you do know that "effect" is also a verb, and "affect" is also a noun, right?

    8. Re:Great... by joe_bruin · · Score: 1

      Grammer tip: 'Effect' is used as a noun. 'Affect' is used as a verb.

      Spelling tip: The word grammar has no E.

    9. Re:Great... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it ever finishes, you can try compiling OpenOffice.org. Should keep your space heater running for several decades, at least..

    10. Re:Great... by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      Did you ever try to build XFree from source? Well, did you?

      I've done it. A while back I was fooling around with X joystick support. Because this module wasn't compiled by default I had to screw around with config files and then build the entire ball of wax. After some days of such tom-foolery I had an X desktop which I could use the joystick like a mouse. Woo... Never did that again.

      I'll take autotools over IMAKE any day. At least I have a somewhat tenuous grasp of how autotools function, which is more than I can say for IMAKE, since its only used for compiling XF86.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    11. Re:Great... by nitehorse · · Score: 1

      You're totally right, and we know that :)

      However, it's from a less-distant past than imake, so it's still a step forward.

      (You would not believe how difficult it would have been to convince the laggards in the X community to adopt Scons instead of automake. Thankfully, other big projects like KDE aren't quite so difficult to drag kicking and screaming into the current century.)

    12. Re:Great... by anothy · · Score: 1

      i have. i've built X11 on plan 9, even! let me tell you, that was a kick.

      imake is archaic and probably overly complex. and sure, that's bad. but the autotool mess is an invitation to cop out of questions of portability. using it as an example of how to write portable code shows a fundamental misunderstanding of C, Unix, standards-based programming, and, well, computer science. it can be used sanely, i suppose, like most tools, but it's simply way too easy to abuse.

      i'm glad to see x.org taking modularity seriously, but sad to see them using autotool to do it.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    13. Re:Great... by quizzicus · · Score: 1

      Grammar tip: 'effect' can be used as a verb.

    14. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and I once saw a photograph of Queen Elizibeth II, so that makes me royalty.

    15. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and "affect" can be used as a noun, too

  8. Re:Let me be the first to say by heinousjay · · Score: 1, Funny

    I don't think there was any danger of you losing this particular contest.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  9. the correct mirror URL by moocat2 · · Score: 2, Informative
  10. Good by revividus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'd guess that 99% of Linux users (myself included) do not hack away at the X source code.

    On the other hand, I'd guess that for the 1% who do hack X, this will make thier lives easier. Heck, it might even mean more people decide to work on X, which OSS dogma tells us is a Good Thing(TM), and it probably is.

    1. Re:Good by Fnord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what this means is that of the people who want to hack on the X source code, 99% were unable to get into it because of the interdependant mess that the code was, and the inabillity for most people to commit back.

      Now 99% of the people who want to hack on X will be able to find a small isolated module to start on. And now those modules may be able to evolve without breaking the whole. I've wanted to hack at X for a long time, now I very well might.

    2. Re:Good by karlto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a user, my life is made easier by the result of the developers' work. If it is easier for them to do this work, I'm sure that every user will see a benefit.

    3. Re:Good by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      99% of Linux users do not hack on any one program.

      Indeed, there may be enough of them that 99% do not hack at all.

      Bruce

    4. Re:Good by harisund · · Score: 0

      I'd guess that 99% of Linux users (myself included) do not hack away at the X source code. On the other hand, I'd guess that for the 1% who do hack X, this will make thier lives easier. Heck, it might even mean more people decide to work on X, which OSS dogma tells us is a Good Thing(TM), and it probably is. If that 1% didn't hack, you wouldn't be having X

    5. Re:Good by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      Besides, by making things easier for developers, that means that the end users will get a more stable and featured product faster.

    6. Re:Good by node+3 · · Score: 1

      No...

      I'm confused by your use of the word "No", for it sounds like your statement agrees with, and complements nicely, the post by revividus.

      As I read it, he said being modular will make contributing to X.org will be easier, and that might very well bring in more coders... And you said getting involved with X.org will be easier, and that you very well might just join in because of that.

    7. Re:Good by spitzak · · Score: 1

      It's probably more like 99.99% of Linux users do not hack on X source code.

      However this change may allow that to be reduced to 99.9% by making it 10 times easier to hack on the source code for X and thus 10 times more popular.

  11. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    -1 Troll. Linux the kernel is "Linux (R)", and X runs on top of Linux, not of GNU* (but is part of GNU). RMS does not want the Linux kernel to be called GNU/Linux. This has been explained ad nauseam .

    * Hmm, but now uses GNU autotools :)

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  12. For the end-users, ... by c0l0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... there are a few new features to expect. I'm most curious about the new drivers for ATI's R300-Chips (and newer), called "r300", which will provide GLX-Support (hardware-accelerated OpenGL) in a Free Software-only manner.
    Oh, and there are some minor features to be added, like 30Bit visuals for improved greyscale graphics for medical purposes, for example.
     
    Apart from the new drivers, there's nothing to be OVERLY excited about this release - unless you're going to build yourself, I'm really looking forward to playing around with portions of the code without having to recompile the whole bloody source again. :)

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:For the end-users, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really looking forward to playing around with portions of the code without having to recompile the whole bloody source again. :)

      Please spare a thought for the Gentoo users too.

    2. Re:For the end-users, ... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I'm more curious about AIW VIVO and tuner support. Oh, and dual monitor outputs on my Radeon 7500 PCI. Even if ATI contributed specs and/or code to FINALLY enable x.org to run properly on their cards, I will continue to hate ATI and steer people away from their products. They are taking too damn long to get their act together.

      *mourns the death of PCI video cards*

      *wishes NVidia vendors would release a 6x00 or 7x00 based PCI card*

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:For the end-users, ... by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'm hoping the Mach64 TV out will actually let me use TV Out on an old Mobility Pro chipset.

    4. Re:For the end-users, ... by ShawnX · · Score: 1

      I've been using Xorg from CVS for a while. I must say, the r300 GL support is not bad at all. There is no hardware RENDER support yet but they'll get to that. Once that's done, things will really fly

      - ShawnX

      --
      Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
  13. Why do we need the X? by dhasenan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been using Windows for years. First they started with numbers after the name, then they put "Me!" instead, then something about experience points. Now that's not enough, and they want prefixes as well.

    Screw the bastards. I'm going with Linux.

    1. Re:Why do we need the X? by karlto · · Score: 3, Funny

      iAgree.

  14. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by grey3000 · · Score: 1

    Linux is a Registered trademark of Linus
    GNU is a registered trademark of the GNU foundation

    so the GNU/Linux doen't apply :)

    --
    "On a normal ascii line, the only safe condition to detect is a 'BREAK' - everything else having been assigned functions
  15. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by cosineof90 · · Score: 1

    Richard Stallman may disagree with you here

  16. nVidia by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how long will it take us to get nVidia to support this with their evil, closed source drivers?

    For that matter, even if there is R300 support, isn't it now 2 generations back?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:nVidia by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I thought ATI had the terrible drivers. I'm so confused now :(

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:nVidia by jZnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least nVidia actively supports Linux. Take a look at ATi and tell me they're doing anything helpful with their own abysmal Linux support.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    3. Re:nVidia by AnXa · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think that at least couple months to get good EXA support from nVidia as they have to recode some parts their drivers. Expect faster compositation (more eye candy) with this release and better drivers. Also you can expect nv driver doing things what haven't never dream about. nv ships with the R7 so you don't have to wait support for it. 3dacceleration and nvidia. I guess you can use current drivers but I am not sure about them since we have now new acceleration architecture. nVidia has it's own system for this so I don't know if they will implement EXA or continue using their own systems. X will be somewhat faster too if I understood right everything on this page: http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ChangesSince68 that's the changelog and there are plenty of stuff to take a look at. :)

      --
      -Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
    4. Re:nVidia by Sparks23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would think that there'd be an initial delay, but that in the long run it will actually be rather faster this way. Since if a video card driver wants to not share their info, they can now in theory write a modular driver for X11 and release a little binary video driver module, instead of having to release binaries of the entire X11 system.

      Granted, the reality may be different than the ideal, but we can hope, right?

      --
      --Rachel
    5. Re:nVidia by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      nVidia's drivers are good enough to be worth trying, then be crushed at how bad they are. ATIs drivers aren't even worth trying, where they exist, so OSS nerds just avoid the ATI platform altogether.

    6. Re:nVidia by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So how long will it take us to get nVidia to support this with their evil, closed source drivers?

      It's working fine for me. Only a slight stench of evil.

      Seriously, the latest 81.74 drivers and XOrg 7.0RC3 are working great for me. The composite support seems a lot faster and more stable. Previously I would get slight lag when moving big transparent windows around but now it's very fast and smooth. Of course I turn them off again after 30 seconds due to the almost total lack of usefulness, but it's nice to know they're there.

      Anyway, closed source and evil they may be, but my cheap-ass Geforce 5700 is probably faster under Linux than any card from another manufacturer. Maybe ATI's 1800XT with their proprietary drivers would beat it, assuming that their Linux drivers even support the latest cards yet. I'm pretty sure it would be less stable even if it did. Sadly, I don't think that any card using OSS drivers would even come close.

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

      Works great ;)

      dice@entropy ~ $ equery list xorg-x11
      [ Searching for package 'xorg-x11' in all categories among: ]
        * installed packages
      [I--] [ ] x11-base/xorg-x11-7.0.0_rc4 (0)
      dice@entropy ~ $ equery list nvidia-glx
      [ Searching for package 'nvidia-glx' in all categories among: ]
        * installed packages
      [I--] [ ] media-video/nvidia-glx-1.0.8174-r1 (0)

    8. Re:nVidia by kelnos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exa is a replacement for XAA, the old X Acceleration Architecture. nvidia's binary drivers do not use XAA. They cooked up their own method for accelerating their drivers, independent of what the X developers were using. Their method is superior to XAA, and it remains to be seen whether or not it's superior to Exa. If so, don't expect them to change. If not, it'll likely be a while before it's implemented. This is proprietary software, remember. It takes a lot longer.

      The OSS nv driver in 7.0 does *not* have Exa support. I've tried the currently-available experimental patch, and it crashes X within a few seconds of startup on my hardware. It also breaks XAA on non-AGP cards. Note that an exa-enabled nv may or may not accelerate 2D operations as well or as fast as the proprietary nvidia driver does. Personally, as long as it's better, I'll be happy, as nvidia is terribly unstable with composite enabled.

      I love how incorrect information gets marked up as "informative". *sigh*

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    9. Re:nVidia by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      ...instead of having to release binaries of the entire X11 system.

      Huh? What have you been smoking. No one has EVER had to do this.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    10. Re:nVidia by Sparks23 · · Score: 1

      I admit I haven't used XFree86 for years, but when I did, I recall there having been separate XFree86 compiles for certain different hardware accelerations.

      If I mis-recall, or the drivers were already made modular in the time since I stopped using X11, then no, folks are right and this probably really doesn't really have much end-user impact. :)

      --
      --Rachel
    11. Re:nVidia by Sparks23 · · Score: 1

      Specifically, to elaborate. I remember there being multiple server binaries, each named XF86_card where 'card' was a specific accelerator. I recall -- perhaps erroneously -- running XF86_Mach64 for the Mach 64 chipset, XF86_S3 for the S3 Virge chipset, or XF86_SVGA for a generic SVGA driver.

      --
      --Rachel
    12. Re:nVidia by wasabii · · Score: 1

      You're right. But that was a *long* time ago. It's crazy somebody rememebers that. X drivers have been .so's for awhile. Now they're .so's which are built seperately from the main program and each other.

    13. Re:nVidia by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      nVidia merely has evil drivers. ATi's drivers are evil and terrible.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:nVidia by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      It's working fine for me. Only a slight stench of evil.

      No doubt. I think I'm on my 5th nVidia card now, and they have all worked in Linux, beyond my expectations, and with essentially no problems. Furthermore, the drivers are pretty painless to install compared to the wild old days of compiling Mesa or attempting to use X's DRI implementation.

      I fail to see what the big deal is anyways. What purpose would be gained from looking at the driver source code? If you are a student, then just check out the DRI code for a TNT card in the kernel tree, and if you can make sense of that, perhaps you should apply for a job at nVidia. I have always suspected that most of these whiners about "closed source nVidia drivers" are actually competitors.

      Yes, for posterity, the source code would be nice to have. But for now, I'd rather have the affordable yet awesome performing hardware that just works. Probably some day they will release the code, but certainly not while its still making them heaps of cash. They provide their own optimized OpenGL libs, a kernel module, and a pretty nice installer which has worked on about any Linux system I've ever tried it with. Obviously nVidia has some extremely talented Linux developers on the payroll.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    15. Re:nVidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but that NVidia installer stinks. Because it ignores local package management and moves aside your OpenGL libraries, it means that OpenGL library updates will overwrite the NVidia driver. Because it misdetects existing NVidia drivers, upgrading one in place flushes *ALL* your OpenGL libraries and breaks X outright until you re-install from your local OS's OpenGL libraries so that the NVidia installer can step on it again. The integration of the kernel module, along with NVidia and Linux kernel licensing, means that you can't sell machines with the NVidia driver already installed. And the kernel module installer isn't smart enough to detect multiple kernels in place, or an active kernel that is no longer the one you have installed because you used that amazingly stupid SuSE kernel installer that automatically blows away your old kernel when doing upgrades and removes the boot options for it, even if you have the old kernel available. It also means you can't write RPM's for it because it stomps on the existing Mesa libraries and RPM's don't wait for you to sign a fairly ludicrous end-user license to install them.

      Combine that with NVidia licensing preventing you from including it as an option in X configuration tools, forcing you to edit your X configurations by hand or rely on the NVidia installer to set it, and the inconsistent naming of the driver tarballs so that you *HAVE TO* know which one you want from visual examination of the download webpage or FTP sites, you can't automate selection, and you're pretty screwed if you're trying to do fix a broken system or install a large site.

      I've personally installed hundreds of such cards, re-written the installer tools and submitted them to NVidia. They still use their old, badly written, library destroying installer.

    16. Re:nVidia by NeoChaosX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ATi released the specs for their Radeon 9250 chips and older models, so open-source hackers can make our own drivers (it's also the reason why the EXA feature in 7.0 supports ATi cards right now, and not nVidia cards). IMO allowing programmers to make their own open-source drivers with the official specs would be considered a lot more "helpful to Linux" than putting out working but closed-source drivers.

      --
      One man's selflessness is another man's annoyance.
    17. Re:nVidia by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      This is proprietary software, remember. It takes a lot longer.

      Takes longer eh? Is that why Nvidia cards were accerating the composite managers before EXA even had a name?

      Personally, as long as it's better, I'll be happy, as nvidia is terribly unstable with composite enabled.

      Try the newest drivers. I have not had Xcompmgr crash my system in two weeks! (of course it helps to have the newest xcompmgr too).

    18. Re:nVidia by kelnos · · Score: 1
      This is proprietary software, remember. It takes a lot longer.
      Takes longer eh? Is that why Nvidia cards were accerating the composite managers before EXA even had a name?
      They were actually accelerating the Render extension. Not composite or composite managers. My point is that proprietary software release cycles generally take longer than OSS. That alone will likely delay nvidia's release, not the actual development time. At any rate, you've picked a poor example here: the reason nvidia is faster than OSS is because OSS developers lack specs for most high-end video hardware.
      Personally, as long as it's better, I'll be happy, as nvidia is terribly unstable with composite enabled.
      Try the newest drivers. I have not had Xcompmgr crash my system in two weeks! (of course it helps to have the newest xcompmgr too).
      I've been using them for a couple weeks; the new drivers are actually worse, on my hardware at least.
      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    19. Re:nVidia by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      nVidia also supports FreeBSD! ATI does not. I had to buy an nvidia card recently because my AIW 9600xt would not work in freebsd and my older firegl card (radeon 8800 chipset) would crash with dri enabled.

      Both companies could do more with open source, but I personally have more respect for nVidia at the moment.

    20. Re:nVidia by MattBurke · · Score: 1

      I have a sweet laptop (under windows) running X unaccelerated under FreeBSD because of those twats at ATI. I tried doing some OpenGL coding once and spent more time rebooting than I did coding. Not directly ATI's fault - more a load of Mesa bugs I think, but I may as well have written my own software 3D rendering engine given all the performance I couldn't get out of this ATI chip.

      Even under Linux I understand getting 3D acceleration is next to impossible unless you're willing to run someone else's kernel!

      I have no objections to well wrappered closed-source kernel or X.org modules (given a proper wrapper!) but running someone else's kernel is a definite no-no. To me this wreaks of clueless people being scared off innovation by the GPL and the Linux OSS zealots

      My next laptop will definitely be using nVidia.

    21. Re:nVidia by Vanders · · Score: 1

      I fail to see what the big deal is anyways. What purpose would be gained from looking at the driver source code?

      I don't know about just looking, but it's very useful to have working source code available if you want to port it to other systems. Syllable would still be using VESA only if it wern't for the availability of video driver source from XFree86/Xorg and in the future we'll rely on source for any and all OpenGL hardware acceleration. If anything, we need far more source for drivers that support 3D acceleration.

    22. Re:nVidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except ATi no longer publish specs for their more recent cards, so they are just as bad as nVidia.

      Forget about chosing ATi over nVidia because you think you're "helping OSS" by supporting a company that publishes specs.

      Roll on the release of the Open Graphics Project....

    23. Re:nVidia by achim · · Score: 1

      that's history since XFree 4 (if your video card is not so old and obscure to still only being supported by Xfree 3).

    24. Re:nVidia by be-fan · · Score: 1

      R300 also supports many R400 cards, since an R400 is basically a RV360 with extra pipelines.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    25. Re:nVidia by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      That's why I'm glad the laptop I'm using now has an nVidia card. When I get the chance again to buy the new laptop I use at work in 3 years or so I expect there will be good drivers for the ATI X300 card in it. (and if sooner I might just create a dual boot config again of WinXP and FreeBSD)

      --
      home
  17. What does this mean? by dteichman2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What does this mean for the end-user? Nothing.

    What does this mean for programmers? Stock-up on Prozac.

    --


    Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
  18. Stupid troll by /dev/trash · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gnu is a trademark of CS Lewis.

  19. I usually don't complain... by dalutong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I am a huge proponent of Free software. But I sure would like to know when X will support today's new technologies and trends. rotating your screen is very difficult. and you can't have accelleration when you do. even resolution changes are difficult (xrandr helps, but you still can only move between the resolutions provided at the X server start, which doesn't help if you've plugged in a different monitor.) Switching between dual displays is hard.

    can't think of anything else at the moment.

    --

    What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    1. Re:I usually don't complain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...switching between dual displays is hard.

      For some reason I have to alt-tab and use the keyboard to slide the window to the secondary monitor with the cursor along only for the ride, just to be able to move that cursor and click and focus on another app sitting there. This is GNOME's peculiarity. In enlightenment (e16), it's almost the same, except a little more convenient when you have 'mouse follows focus' on. After using ALT-TAB the cursor follows the newly-focused window.

      My setup: Two vid cards (one AGP--an ATI Radeon 7000, another PCI ancient ATI). I'm just curious about the mention of ATI drivers. Heck they may just be for newer cards

    2. Re:I usually don't complain... by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      rotating your screen is very difficult. and you can't have accelleration when you do.

      I suspect that's at least partially because most desktop hardware doesn't support it. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that rotation of the whole screen would be quite hard. I think you'd have to draw everything normally and then rotate it before writing it to the framebuffer. Logically the hardware would be designed & optimised to draw lines from left to right and changing that is probably not as easy as you think. Unless it's a laptop / portable chipset it's probably a very uncommon use case anyway.

    3. Re:I usually don't complain... by dalutong · · Score: 1

      it is a laptop. i can't imagine it is so hard -- tablet screens are regularly rotated.

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    4. Re:I usually don't complain... by Burz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Xorg is also a bear to configure, either by hand or automaticaly. You are only supplied with a CLI tool (with no options) that does a terrible job most of the time. In order to change the default resolution, depth or refresh rate most users must rely on distro-specific tools which are unable to handle the xorg.conf file with confidence.

      For instance, my distro did not initially setup DPMS (power-saving) feature, so I added the option to xorg.conf myself with a text editor. Now I cannot change the default settings using the disstro-supplied GUI tool-- Thee only way it will let me is to first restore the original backup configuration (the version it knows how to handle).

      Linux is plagued by perhaps a dozen half-assed Dsiplay setting tools.

      Why does Xorg leave it to the dsitros and the end-user?? THEY are the experts on the conf file format, so they should provide a way to change individual settings without disturbing the others. It reads the bloody xorg.conf file every time it starts, so why can't it handle writing it back to disk?? Is it too hard to add one more API funtion saveConf() so that a user-facing configuration tool can make changes without screwing up?

      Alternately, why not swicth to using an XML conf file? That would result in 3rd-party tools being able to change the configuration much for sure-footedly.

    5. Re:I usually don't complain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear god, mod parent up. I couldn't agree more!!!!!

      Changing your refresh rate, resolution or anything else is a fscking nightmare. The X.org guys rely on DDC information, but for those us who are hooked via BNC or any other method that doesn't provide DDC information, it's hacking the file manually.

      I posted suggestions on the X mailing list in 1999 and those problems are still here today. It's 2005, in a few days it'll be 2006, can we please have a decent tool for editing / changing options? *PLEASE?!*

    6. Re:I usually don't complain... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      The math is real easy, and probably trivial to do in hardware. (Which I expect they do for tablet PCs)

      (x,y) -- Normal
      (-y,x) -- Rotated 90 degrees
      (-x, -y) -- Rotated 180 degrees
      (y, -x) -- Rotated 270 degrees
      (x, y) -- Rotated another 90 degrees...back where we started.

    7. Re:I usually don't complain... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Why does Xorg leave it to the dsitros and the end-user??

      OK, which toolkit do you want it for? Gtk+, integrated with GNOME? Qt, integrated with KDE? GNUStep, integrated with wmaker? Whatever it is they use for Enlightenment? Tk, so it looks equally cruddy on all desktops?

      Or how about ncurses, so it'll work on the console when you totally screw over your config files despite having a pretty interface?

      THEY are the experts on the conf file format, so they should provide a way to change individual settings without disturbing the others.

      Not sure what you mean...the config file's already very modular, internally.

    8. Re:I usually don't complain... by Burz · · Score: 1
      Dear god, mod parent up. I couldn't agree more!!!!!

      Changing your refresh rate, resolution or anything else is a fscking nightmare. The X.org guys rely on DDC information, but for those us who are hooked via BNC or any other method that doesn't provide DDC information, it's hacking the file manually.

      I posted suggestions on the X mailing list in 1999 and those problems are still here today. It's 2005, in a few days it'll be 2006, can we please have a decent tool for editing / changing options? *PLEASE?!*

      Thanks. And part of the problem is also in that DDC is somehow mishandled in a minority of cases. The distros know this, and so many of us end up with configs forced to a "SVGA 1600x1200 @ 85Hz" with modelines explicitly listed, making the config file even more nightmarish.

      A little more user focus would enable Xorg to anticipate common scenarios where end-users change specific defaults with a GUI-based tool. Currently, they do not enable distro and desktop projects to build good config tools.
    9. Re:I usually don't complain... by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      Thanks. And part of the problem is also in that DDC is somehow mishandled in a minority of cases. The distros know this, and so many of us end up with configs forced to a "SVGA 1600x1200 @ 85Hz" with modelines explicitly listed, making the config file even more nightmarish.

      ROFL! Remember XFree86 3.3.3? You'd run this xf86config, or XF86Setup. After answering some questions about your chipset, RAMDAC, monitor refresh rates, which you typically didn't know and couldn't find anywhere (so you chose the defaults), and other stuff, it would spew out a bunch of "standard modelines" that never worked. From then on it was a matter of black magic to bring up a working screen. Then you fooled around with XVidtune and tried to dial in some better modes.

      I think laptops are the worst. Their video chipsets are often extremely weird, and you are provided with little or no information about the screen hardware. Once you get a working modeline for a laptop, write it down on paper and don't lose that sucker.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    10. Re:I usually don't complain... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I added the option to xorg.conf myself with a text editor
      When you have no graphics and the machine isn't on a network text editing is the way to go - it's a very good idea and not a disadvantage. Most distros have GUIs to do the configuration - but GUIs limit you to a set number of options. There are a huge number of options in X - read some driver man pages or the Nvidia README file for examples if you are curious.
      Alternately, why not swicth to using an XML conf file?
      Ow ow ow ow! In theory 3rd party tools may work - reality includes such abominations as gconf which can not even be ported to other machines with their own tools and 3rd party tools can't make sense of it. Text config files have the advantage that in a truly stuffed system you can even edit them in ed - or on a different system in MS Word if you really prefer. The file format isn't the problem, with the DPMS feature setting problem above a better GUI config program would let you add it and just output the text of the config file - but it would probably be up to a distribution to pay for someone to put together and maintain what would be a large (for one person) and boring project.
    11. Re:I usually don't complain... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      rotating your screen is very difficult. and you can't have accelleration when you do.
      Why do you say this? Mathematicly it is incredibly simple to do rotations in steps of 90 degrees, and other angles probably aren't that useful in most cases anyway. The Nvidia implementation of xrandr appears to run rotated screens with full acceleration on low end cards.
    12. Re:I usually don't complain... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      XML is a text format. Very similar to html. Actually the current web standard is xmlized html called xhtml 1.0 (most are still using the outdated html for the web though).

    13. Re:I usually don't complain... by Burz · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think XFree86 was upto about THREE tacked-on shell-based configuration utilities. None of them really did the job.

      With Xorg, now we have one config utility and it doesn't even display a testpattern with a timeout!

      The community really should dump X11 for good. It has no sysadmin focus because server rooms shun it, and it has no end-user focus either. What do we get for using it? That great Unix "superiority" that allows you to run applications remotely *IF* you can use ssh; Meanwhile Windows users can share a window among multiple remote users and even "whiteboard" over the display, along with chat and videoconferencing. BUT!!! X11 is "superior".

      Remember that. Try real hard.

    14. Re:I usually don't complain... by ookaze · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dear god, mod parent up. I couldn't agree more!!!!!

      You must be a troll too then ...

      Changing your refresh rate, resolution or anything else is a fscking nightmare.

      Actually it's not, it's very simple. There are a command line tool, and applets for both of the major DE to do just that.

      The X.org guys rely on DDC information, but for those us who are hooked via BNC or any other method that doesn't provide DDC information, it's hacking the file manually.

      So you complain about XOrg when the reason is your outdated hardware ?

      I posted suggestions on the X mailing list in 1999 and those problems are still here today. It's 2005, in a few days it'll be 2006, can we please have a decent tool for editing / changing options?

      Let me get this straight : you complain that the newest XOrg does not trip over itself to support your 80ish hardware by setting it up automagically, when your hardware does not provide the functionality, and when this work actually belongs to the manufacturer, adding the fact that XOrg gives you a workaround but you won't accept it because it means manual editing ????!!!!!!
      My previous 21" monitor (a Iiyama) was hooked through a VGA-BNC cable to my Linux box, and XOrg detected the DDC info without problem, and it was an old model already.
      You won't even find monitor with BNC anymore.
      The problem you're talking about that is still here today is your hardware, especially if you won't use the workaround provided to you by XOrg, and if your manufacturer won't support you.
      I agree about the decent tool though.

    15. Re:I usually don't complain... by ookaze · · Score: 1

      I think XFree86 was upto about THREE tacked-on shell-based configuration utilities. None of them really did the job.

      They were bad tools but actually did the job.
      For specific need they did not, and they would have a hard time doing it, as in Windows, the manufacturer is the one actually providing the tools. That's why changing graphics card often means changing tool completely on Windows, even when the manufacturer is the same. How could XOrg do so much work without even knowing the hardware ?

      With Xorg, now we have one config utility and it doesn't even display a testpattern with a timeout!

      No, but its doc tells you how to do just that (hint : startx). I think it even display how to test once it's finished configuring. At least that's where I found the info. Obviously, you did not even check the man page, but you are very eager to complain.

      The community really should dump X11 for good

      BS. Even MS is coming to the X11 model. We don't need bad advices like yours.

      It has no sysadmin focus because server rooms shun it, and it has no end-user focus either

      I agree for end-user, that was not the goal of X11 implementations though. Sysadmins (good ones at least) handle just fine thanks.
      Tell me you are a (very) bad sysadmin, I will be more eager to believe you.

      What do we get for using it? That great Unix "superiority" that allows you to run applications remotely *IF* you can use ssh

      You don't need ssh to run it remotely ...

      Meanwhile Windows users can share a window among multiple remote users and even "whiteboard" over the display, along with chat and videoconferencing. BUT!!! X11 is "superior".

      You believe that because you are a moron that don't even know its facts.
      Messenger (or whatever the name of the MS IM client) is not the Windows windowing system. Windows users (most of them on Home, as that's what come with most PC) can actually NOT share windows at all, and surely not among multiple remote users. I know, as I tried, and came fast back to X11 and Linux, that provide this functionality since at least 1998. Actually Windows seems to be able to do that, but you need a several thousand dollars license, and you need to use another protocol (RDP). The other features you talk about are actually IM client features.
      I don't claim X11 is superior, but it sure has superior features, one of them its powerful extension mechanism.

    16. Re:I usually don't complain... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      BS. Even MS is coming to the X11 model. We don't need bad advices like yours.

      MS isn't moving to the X11 "model". MS is putting graphics in userspace. The latter is a commonality with X11, but it's not the "X11 model". The Vista rendering model is much closer to the DRI than to X11.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    17. Re:I usually don't complain... by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      The Nvidia implementation of xrandr appears to run rotated screens with full acceleration on low end cards.

      Full XRender support maybe, but it kills hardware support for Xv, so mplayer chomps up 10x more CPU cycles.

    18. Re:I usually don't complain... by Burz · · Score: 1

      You believe that because you are a moron that don't even know its facts.
      Messenger (or whatever the name of the MS IM client)...


      How funny. Misplaced your facts? ...is not the Windows windowing system.

      Yet the Windows OS anticipates this use-case and makes possible many applications from Citrix clients to WebEx and NetMeeting (shipped with Windows). X11 supporting more than one user viewing the same instance of the same application? Show me the application...

      Also Netmeeting can work in P2P fashion, so costly servers are not absolutely required.

      No, but its doc tells you how to do just that (hint : startx).

      Brilliant. Man pages are so appropriate for desktop users changing a basic setting.

      I think it even display how to test once it's finished configuring

      Nope.
      However there are the usual questions asking for scanning frequency in kilohertz, device paths, etc. No wonder both NeXT and Apple ever touched X11 with a 20-foot pole.

      I agree for end-user, that was not the goal of X11 implementations though. Sysadmins (good ones at least) handle just fine thanks.
      Tell me you are a (very) bad sysadmin, I will be more eager to believe you.


      If your assumption holds (that X11's audience is limited to sysadmins and engineers), then its the Linux distros that are practicing badness. At least I can recognize when there is a disconnect between end-user needs and what is being offered to them. Too bad you instead took it as an opportunity for namecalling.

    19. Re:I usually don't complain... by Burz · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's wrong with putting the xorg.conf file through an XML parser. With a set schema, individial settings can be changed without trepidation.

      At worst, it makes the config a little harder to read for anyone using an XML-unaware editor.

      Saying we just need a "better" GUI settings tool doesn't address the problem. The GUI writer is still stuck trying to anticipate all the valid permutations (and possible missteps) in an odd and subtle format. Plus there are only small amounts of effort going into many different tools, and they all do a poor job.

      I say let Xorg supply the smarts for actually managing its own xorg.conf file. This could take different forms: 1) Setting an XML schema; 2) supplying a library with functions for changing individual settings (and checking their validity before saving back to disk).

  20. Re:What this means [OT] by Shimmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spelling tip: Grammar isn't spelled the way you think it is.

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  21. Imake? by kzinti · · Score: 1

    Imake is the spawn of the devil. I've used it. I've understood it. But I HATED myself in the morning.

    1. Re:Imake? by msbsod · · Score: 2, Informative

      X.org could learn a lot from NetBSD. The NetBSD makefiles are small and contain typically just the names of the source files and targets.

    2. Re:Imake? by prockcore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NetBSD could learn a lot from the rest of the world.. where you don't have to recompile an entire project just because you made a small change to a header file.

      Autotools do more than just make sure you have all the libraries needed to compile the app, they also set up a dependency tree so only the files affected need to be recompiled when a change is made.

    3. Re:Imake? by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      BSD make has had this for ages, see mkdep(1).

  22. platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In continuous use for over 20 years, the X Window System provides the only standard platform-independent networked graphical window system...

    Somehow I question the claim that the X Window System is still platform-independent. To me it looks like a unix-centric development. There are other operating systems, like VMS, and they come with older versions of the X Window System, too. But the "autothis-and-that" tools all are written for Unix features, like the file specification, syntax of options, compilation tools etc.. None of the differences among various operating systems are addressed in the new scheme and somehow I doubt they will be in the future. Of course, one could adapt other operating system to Unix, but people who chose not to use Unix certainly did that because they do not want to their software to be Unix-alike. Not that I want to judge here which operating system is the best (after all this is /. :-), but I like to suggest that either the people who are developing the X Window System work on this part of their software or drop the claim that they produce platform-independent software.

    In any case I appreciate the X Window System very much, thanks.

    1. Re:platform-independent? by nitehorse · · Score: 2, Informative

      X.org builds and runs on more than just Linux/UNIX; it works on MacOS X's display server as well as on Windows and (at least at one point) OS/2.

      So no, we won't drop the 'X is cross-platform' claim anytime soon. Thanks though.

    2. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      MacOS lost its independence when Apple decided to use a Unix system as core of MacOS with version X.

      Mac OS X: Look who else is switching

    3. Re:platform-independent? by Compholio · · Score: 1

      ... but I like to suggest that either the people who are developing the X Window System work on this part of their software or drop the claim that they produce platform-independent software.

      What about X11 for Mac OS X? Or how about X11 running on Windows using Cygwin? Seems to me like X11 is about as close as you can get to a platform-independent graphics platform.

    4. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "UNIX" you mean "POSIX" then yes, autotools are POSIX-centric. There's really no way around it. You can't write code that will work with every set of system libraries known to man. But if you had ever tried to port from Solaris on SPARC to AIX on PPC to BSD on MIPS to Linux on i686 you would appreciate how different all those "UNIX" OSes really are. The very fact that you use "UNIX" to mean "POSIX" is evidence of how many tools, including X-windows, are already quite platform independent.

      It's also a bit of a stretch to say "people who chose not to use Unix certainly did that because they do not want to their software to be Unix-alike". People who choose to write non-POSIX OSes might object to parts of the model, but they very likely appreciate other parts. And even if they object to all parts of POSIX, OS designers certainly don't represent end users, who rarely have much choice abour their OS in the first place.

    5. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      This discussion is about how the source code of the X Window Software is organized and being compiled. With Windows and OS/2 you have exactly the same issues. Windows for example uses a backslash "\" as separator between directory names and file names. Windows also uses device names (all the same for OS/2). Now, try to use a backslash in the current scheme. The only reason why we can build the X.Org software on Windows, OS/2 and (!) VMS is because these operating systems were adapted to be Unix compatible, not because the current X Window Software imake scheme is platform-independent.

    6. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can run X11 on previous MacOS versions (eg. MacOS 9).

      X11 runs on all sorts of systems, it's not a Unix thing. It's just that most Unix systems decided that X11 would be the primary display mechanism.

      Hell, I run X11 on my PDA.

    7. Re:platform-independent? by penguin-collective · · Score: 3, Informative

      X11 clients and servers run on Linux, UNIX, Windows, OS X, and dozens of other operating systems.

      but I like to suggest that either the people who are developing the X Window System work on this part of their software or drop the claim that they produce platform-independent software.

      You don't understand. X11 is a protocol; there are dozens of different client implementations and dozens of different server implementations. X.org and XFree86 happen to be UNIX-centric, but other implementations are not.

    8. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's platform-indepenent in the sense that a client running on any platform with the X client libraries can throw a window on any platform running an X server. GNU/Linux/Alpha programs can put a display on CygwinX/x86 system and vice-versa.

      And the X client and server code has been ported to just about every hardware/OS combination on the planet. It might show some Unixisms but it _does_ work.

    9. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      And X11 runs on VMS, too. But this comes at a price, namely that all alternative operating systems have to be adapted to be Unix-compatible with the current imake scheme. And that is hardly a platform-independent solution.

    10. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that I am writing about the X11 protocol?

    11. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows will quite happily use a / as a directory seperator.

    12. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      Because it was adapted to be Unix-compatible! Remember, MSDOS used the / for command line options. Now, that would produce a mess with the current scheme, wouldn't it? Later, Microsoft added an option to MSDOS to replace the / with another character. Nothing changed with Windows.

    13. Re:platform-independent? by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      Because you wrote "Somehow I question the claim that the X Window System is still platform-independent". "The X Window System" is not a piece of software.

      If you meant something different, you have to express yourself more clearly if you want people to understand you.

    14. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe you should read the whole paragraph before you throw in your guana.

    15. Re:platform-independent? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that, because this new release ONLY supports Linux and Solaris.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    16. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used a windows-native Xserver (they don't tend to be free, but then neither is windows). No cygwin required!

    17. Re:platform-independent? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that, because this new release ONLY supports Linux and Solaris.
      ... while companies like IBM (AIX) and HP (TRU64/HPUX and VMS) are funding this project.

    18. Re:platform-independent? by penguin-collective · · Score: 1
      Yes, your mindless babbling continues:
      But the "autothis-and-that" tools all are written for Unix features, like the file specification, syntax of options, compilation tools etc.. None of the differences among various operating systems are addressed in the new scheme and somehow I doubt they will be in the future.

      Your problem is with XFree86 and/or X.org, not with "the X Window System".

      The X Window System is and remains platform independent, with interoperable, multiple client and server implementations for many different platforms.
    19. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's Microsoft's problem for choosing not to copy the Unix style in the first place. They're the ones who decided that backslash was a better choice of path separator than forward-slash, and that forward-slash could then be used for something else.

    20. Re:platform-independent? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Don't forget CygWin on Windows! The problems getting patches for CygWin into the XFree86 source tree lent huge support to the switch to Xorg for all those Windows users. Then there's VNC, that also is wildly platform agnostic but is now built on Xorg instead of XFree86.

    21. Re:platform-independent? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      ... while companies like IBM (AIX) and HP (TRU64/HPUX and VMS) are funding this project.

      Which is sad, because it won't support AIX, TRU64, HPUX or VMS.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    22. Re:platform-independent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was adapted to be UNIX-compatible in like 1983. Even MSDOS would accept a / path seperator .. usually.

    23. Re:platform-independent? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I question the claim that the X Window System is still platform-independent. To me it looks like a unix-centric development
      There are hummingbirds out there that may exceed your expectations and several other X implementations on MS Windows, macs etc that have existed for a very long time and are still being maintained. There are thin client X-terminals out there that run on MS Windows CE.
      Not that I want to judge here which operating system is the best
      One good thing about X is you don't have to care what OS the application that is getting displayed on your screen is being run on. In extreme cases you may have to worry about the colour depth on your screen, or if X on your machine can handle OpenGL. For a while I was using enlightement as window manager on an MS Windows machine - with a fast enough network and hardware it doesn't even matter if the window manager is being run from somewhere else.
    24. Re:platform-independent? by nitehorse · · Score: 1

      Except that that's bullshit. Those platforms may already work; nobody who cares about them bothered to step forward and verify that they do, though, so we don't claim to support them.

      As soon as someone verifies either that it works or that it's busted, we'll list it as working or fix it and then list it.

    25. Re:platform-independent? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You used the word "we". Does this mean you a member of the X.org team? If so, where was the announcement for the non-Linux, non-Solaris community to get involved with testing? I didn't see any.

      I love Open Source, but it is being held back by the attitude that the user must actively contribute code or be an undeserving freeloader. There's fifteen million projects out there, how the hell is anyone supposed to contribute to all of them?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    26. Re:platform-independent? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      X11 clients and servers run on Linux, UNIX, Windows, OS X, and dozens of other operating systems.

      Linux, "UNIX", and at least some of the other OSes (if they're not grouped under "UNIX") really only count as variants of one flavor of OS; they're all "UNIX-compatible" (classic Mac OS, VMS, etc. count as "other" in this context, but Solaris, various BSDs, HP-UX, AIX, Digital UNIX, IRIX, etc. don't). One could give OS X a little more credit, as its native window system isn't based on X11, so the server side is a bit more interesting, but on the client side it's just another variant of "UNIX-compatible".

    27. Re:platform-independent? by nitehorse · · Score: 1

      I consider myself a member, yeah. I don't contribute nearly as much as folks like ajax, but I have a few (small) patches in this release and I did the buildsystem work to bring EXA to the modular server tree.

      The calls for testing went out to the X.org mailing list; if your company has an operating system that relies on having X.org work and you don't have anyone subscribed, well, that's a serious problem and I don't really know what to tell you. We've had four Release Candidates, with enough time between them for anyone on a given OS to tell us whether or not something is broken.

      We don't expect end-users of AIX to make sure that X continues to work for them; hell, if I remember right, IBM maintains its own X server and its own set of drivers for their own X implementation on AIX, and I doubt that anyone uses X.org on it (since we don't have drivers for the cards that ship on most AIX-capable machines).

      Nobody expects the end-users to contribute to all "fifteen million" projects out there. And the X.org attitude is "We need more developers!" and nothing else; maybe it's holding Open Source back but I think it's better than the XFree86 "Go away, we know better than you" attitude.

  23. mod parent +1, ninja kangeroos with lightsabers by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

    Best thing since Tank Girl.

  24. We've killed X.Org ... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

    us slashdotting bastards ...

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    1. Re:We've killed X.Org ... by Dragoonmac · · Score: 1

      Almost Ironic, if we could DDOS the site of a "20 Year Old, Platform independant, etc... GUI" surely we could take down microsoft.com

      --
      Shots: A Populist Parable
  25. You whippersnappers!!! by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Surely a new operator is in order. I nominate ^.

    I remember using ^ back in the 80s. GW-BASIC, I think.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:You whippersnappers!!! by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      iirc VB does the same thing. I was actually shocked and apalled to find it non-functional in C and Python.

    2. Re:You whippersnappers!!! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I wrote it in response to another sig that said people who use ^ instead of ** are clearly BASIC Programmers...as if that's a bad thing.

    3. Re:You whippersnappers!!! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      iirc VB does the same thing. I was actually shocked and apalled to find it non-functional in C and Python.

      It's understandable why C wouldn't do it, since "power" is a library call, not an operator.

      As for Python, it follows the FORTRAN syntax.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  26. New developers-Will code for food. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Add to this the fact that it's now modular -we can work on different bits much more easily- and it's a winner..."

    Who are these mystery "we"'s that can now work on xorg code, that couldn't before?

  27. Effect on end user by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • Modular code is easier to maintain, so expect fewer bugs and a rapid explosion in the number of features. It is also (generally) easier for binary-only extensions, so expect more hardware vendors to support it.
    • Modular code means that the compiler cannot take advantage of any knowledge of other files when optimizing the code, but this doesn't matter much as the original tree didn't do that either. Commercially optimized versions of X might be fractionally larger and/or slower, though.
    • Gentoo users are in for an looooong run-up to Christmas. Especially if there is a bug in the e-build.
    • Fedora Core users will suffer greatly, unless the RPM specs correctly instruct RPM to deinstall legacy components from the old structure. Fedora users will also need to be careful about any RPM files that refer specifically to the old X11 RPMs. The same is true for other package-based distributions - package dependencies may not be tracked correctly, leading to outdated dependencies. At best, updates might fail unexpectedly.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Effect on end user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...easier for binary-only extensions...

      Noooooooo!
    2. Re:Effect on end user by codergeek42 · · Score: 1

      Gentoo users are in for an looooong run-up to Christmas. Especially if there is a bug in the e-build.

      That's why the developers package.mask and keyword the packages as ~arch (testing/"unstable") and have a set time they must in Portage marked as testing with no major bugs before being moved to the stable tree. Donnie Berkholz has been working very hard with other Gentoo devs to get the new modular X.org into portage (7RC4 is currently package.mask'ed).

      Fedora Core users will suffer greatly, unless the RPM specs correctly instruct RPM to deinstall legacy components from the old structure. Fedora users will also need to be careful about any RPM files that refer specifically to the old X11 RPMs. The same is true for other package-based distributions - package dependencies may not be tracked correctly, leading to outdated dependencies. At best, updates might fail unexpectedly.
       
      That's what the Provides: and Obsoletes: tags in the RPM spec files are for. Also, Fedora users most likely won't see any update to this until Core 5 release circa early March 2006, except driver updates and bugfixes to the current 6.8.2 packaging. X.org 7.0 release candidates have been in Fedora Rawhide (the development tree) for quite a while now for those who like testing and hacking on that stuff.

    3. Re:Effect on end user by mark_hill97 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately we debian users wont have to worry about this for a long time.

    4. Re:Effect on end user by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I even went to check the experimental package for Xorg to see if I could prove that they were at least testing Xorg 6.9, but I guess I'm mistaken. Oh well; I'd rather have solid, stable work going on in Debian than dependency nightmares of keeping up to date...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    5. Re:Effect on end user by krmt · · Score: 1

      Work on Xorg 7.0 for Debian is ongoing, but it's not at the point of going in to experimental yet. 6.9 has been in experimental for months now (the 6.8.99.903 is in fact 6.9 Release Candidate 3), and is very nearly ready to go in to unstable. Hopefully within a week, depending on how much time the holiday season steals away. If you're interested in the modular work, the latest updates are here and here. It's sitting in the X Strike Force subversion repository, and once 6.9 gets all settled in the focus will shift entirely to getting the modular stuff ready to go for etch.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    6. Re:Effect on end user by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      RPM bassed systems will be fine: it'll have to be a forklift upgrade, because the new packages will have to list "Obsoletes:" components in their SPEC files so they get discarded correctly.

      In fact, there's a big advantage in that the modular components will avoid having to also install unrelated packages that share a not-very-important dependency. Updating a single driver, for example, often wound up forcing a matching update of dozens of other related XFree86 packages. This shouldn't happen anymore.

    7. Re:Effect on end user by mark_hill97 · · Score: 1
      Oh well; I'd rather have solid, stable work going on in Debian than dependency nightmares of keeping up to date...

      Agreed, thats why I said fortunately.
    8. Re:Effect on end user by jZnat · · Score: 0

      Oh, I was just going off what I got in the mail, but I guess I forgot the details...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    9. Re:Effect on end user by krmt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you read that it says that 6.9 has been in experimental for a while and has been actively tested. That particular mail pertains entirely to getting it in to unstable.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    10. Re:Effect on end user by zootm · · Score: 1

      Since you seem to know a bit about this, have you any idea how this modularisation interacts with the package modularisation of the Xorg server that was done by the Ubuntu project? Does it help them, hinder them, or are the two modularisation movements completely distinct?

    11. Re:Effect on end user by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The Xorg server and libraries regently went into Debian testing and have been backported to Debian Sarge as well. I am running the backport on my Sarge laptop since I needed the latest video drivers.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  28. Looking foreward to modular X by demon_2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm for one looking foreward to modular X.
    I know that the changes don't mean much at the moment, not to the end user anyway. I'm curious how will this affect the developement process, if more developers will jump on the X.org wagon as the article suggests. Will we see releases more often? I'm also curious how will this affect video card menufactores, and ultimetly their curtomers. I don't know what about the rest of you. I see that there's a bit of mixed feelings about all this but, I'm excited about this. I can't wait to see what kind of an affect it fill have say... 2 year from now

    1. Re:Looking foreward to modular X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just downloaded the full X11R7. You wanted a modular X? You're in for a surprise, I'll tell ya.

      I just did a "ls *.tar.bz2 | wc -l" in the directory where I downloaded X. Guess how many tarballs the complete X11R7 is? 287. Yes. two-hundred-and-eighty-frikkin-seven tarballs. There's no fucking way I'm building this on my own. Looking at the contents of the smaller ones i also noticed that some of them contain no more than a single .c and .h file along with 5-10 autotool files, this is modularization taken to a rediculous extreme. WHY the hell did they use autotools? I mean, it's great for some projects but let's not forget that autotools are a symptom of known deficiencies in "make" (Note: I'm not saying it sucks, I'm just saying it has problems and imake needed to be replaced with something).

      This is too much. Not long ago some POSIX conformance changes were made to coreutils (dropped syntax like `tail -9 file` in favor of `tail -n 9`), this required tonnes of patches to autotool files and configure scripts across the board, imagine if something like that happened again? You'd need 287 patches to just make a full X build. And I havent even touched the problem dependencies between modules yet.

      I pray I'm missing something here because what I'm looking at appears to be a monumental disaster. I thought R7 would be split into 10 maybe 20 tarballs, each with a toplevel configure script (alà KDE, that would've been great) but THIS?! I feel like crying, honest.

      Go to http://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/src/everything/ and tell me what you see.

      Then come back here smack me over the head and tell me I'm dreaming.

  29. Two Build Systems -- Impressive? by cratermoon · · Score: 1

    Supporting imake and autotools in what is essentially the same codebase seems pretty impressive. Just one build system generally is cause for enough hair-pulling to make even RMS go bald. Shouldn't we be offering kudos to the x.org folks?

  30. Hmm. Some people don't like rapid change. by JPamplin · · Score: 1

    I think I'll hold out for 7.1. ;-)

  31. It's the chronic-WHAT-cles of gnunia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double true!

  32. Re:What this means [OT] by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

    You tell 'em, Shimmer! *pat*

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  33. means less painful updating your system by aleator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the xorg as it is now is about 110MB (binary for i686) in size. it comes out about 2 times a year. means that you have to download every year around 230MB of data to keep your X up-to-date.

    BUT (!) actually, you are only 2 weeks of the whole time really up to date, because most of the libraries and drivers are outdated, just a week after the release came out. this means, that you download 230MB and are waiting the whole time for new releases hating the whole system it is organised.

    new, the modularised organisation gives the developers and package maintainers the ability to update just one library at a time - to release it immediately it is known to work fine with the rest and the user has the binary of this small library (e.g. 2MB) ready for download in about a week after its release. this means you still download over the year about 200MB of updates, but you are not waiting for relases to fix your problem, because every week or month, a new release of the PARTS of xorg come out and fix problems and add features. this way, the user profits faster from the whole lot of features that come out and fixes that solve problems. (of course, in the old system, you were always able to get the whole sources (hundreds of MB) and compile them yourself (hours to days of compiling, can fail if you use wrong compiler or wrong checkout-time when getting sources))

    in the modular organisaiton, also a newbie can then recompile only one part of X, because of the less time it takes and a more transperent process

    ==> end user gets updates more frequently, has to wait less and has much less pain updating only parts of X

    1. Re:means less painful updating your system by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the size of the tree (and the time to build it) dramatically increased, what with all those darn 300KB ./configure scripts that take a minute to run.

  34. you're confused by penguin-collective · · Score: 1, Informative

    But I sure would like to know when X will support today's new technologies and trends. rotating your screen is very difficult. and you can't have accelleration when you do. even resolution changes are difficult (xrandr helps, but you still can only move between the resolutions provided at the X server start, which doesn't help if you've plugged in a different monitor.) Switching between dual displays is hard.

    X11 has support for all of those, plus more. It's up to driver writers and server implementors to support those features properly.

    The real question is when Windows and Macintosh will catch up to X11, because they are far behind.

    1. Re:you're confused by geekd · · Score: 1

      X11 has support for all of those, plus more.

      He didn't say "rotating your screen is impossible", he said "rotating your screen is very difficult." I concur. I spent an hour or two trying to figure it out a few weeks ago before giving up.

      -geekd

    2. Re:you're confused by The+Salamander · · Score: 1

      Yea, "xrandr -o left" is pretty damn complicated.

    3. Re:you're confused by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Umm, far behind in what way? I mean, in terms of being able to remote-log-on to a computer and get the GUI? Windows Remote Desktop runs quite well.

    4. Re:you're confused by dalutong · · Score: 1

      Very possibly. i don't know if the problem is in the framework's abilities or in the drivers.

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    5. Re:you're confused by penguin-collective · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, in terms of being able to remote-log-on to a computer and get the GUI? Windows Remote Desktop runs quite well.

      X11's network transparency is a lot more than just remote desktop display; neither Windows nor OS X have anything like it.

      But that's only a small part of it. Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.

    6. Re:you're confused by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      How your desktop exposes screen rotation depends on your desktop, not X11. I have used X11 desktops that provided a gesture, a button, or a gravity sensor for rotation.

      Of course, the "xrandr" command works pretty much with every server/driver combo that supports rotation.

    7. Re:you're confused by dalutong · · Score: 1

      $xrandr -o left
      X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)
          Major opcode of failed request: 153 (RANDR)
          Minor opcode of failed request: 2 (RRSetScreenConfig)
          Serial number of failed request: 12
          Current serial number in output stream: 1

      but adding "Rotate" "CCW" works in xorg.conf. Just have to remember to put SWCursor in there or else my cursor doesn't work. I've been using linux exclusively since 1997... we've been saying that we'll be able to do what Windows users can do "next year" for many years. I just want to be able to use hardware easily that has existed for years (like rotating screens or external monitors.)

      I only complain so much, though, since I don't do much to help. I wish I was a multimillionaire. I would hire a few people to just work on X.

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    8. Re:you're confused by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.

      Yeah, thats why I see tons of ghosting when I move windows around on my Ubuntu box yet my sister's Powerbook (which is far weaker) does not.

      Damage on Xorg is only tolerable for me with xcompmgr running- saying its ahead of either OSX or Windows makes me laugh!

    9. Re:you're confused by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Yeah, thats why I see tons of ghosting when I move windows around on my Ubuntu box yet my sister's Powerbook (which is far weaker) does not.


      Really? Moving windows on my Mac Mini is pretty sluggish. And before you start complaining about the low specs of the Mini, Ars Technica did a review of Tiger on 2x G5 PowerMac with something like 2GB of RAM, and they too complained that the moving and resizing windows is sluggish.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    10. Re:you're confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > $xrandr -o left
      > X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter
      > attributes)

      Try again with the new code. This worked with Keith Packard's X server for a long time now. I am not sure, but I think that this server is used by R7.

    11. Re:you're confused by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0

      But that's only a small part of it. Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.

      Can you actually offer an example? You keep saying X11 is ahead and others are behind without citing anything. Lots has been written--some of it by Apple devs--about the limitations of X11.

      Rendering? OS X is blitting using the GPU and drawing in a subset of Postscript (PDF) for pixel perfect display. You're actually claiming X11 is superior in this realm? Dragging a window in X11 causes all kinds of fun, ugly tearing, and there's no vector-based resolution-independence support.

      I suggest you search Slashdot and find the post from an Apple dev who explains exactly why X11 would have sucked for OS X and why they started from scratch with their own superior system, Quartz and WindowServer, which kick the pants off X11. Next year, both Windows and OS X will be drawing widgets entirely on the GPU, scaling to compensate for any resolution so that they're always the same size. Where will X11 be?

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    12. Re:you're confused by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      I have a Mac mini, and my windows aren't sluggish. Moving windows around is entirely GPU-based


      Really? Then why does my CPU-usage spike up when I move and resize windows in my Mac Mini?

      There must be something else going on.


      Yeah, the reviewers at Ars Technica don't know what they are talking about. And all those people complaining around the net about the sluggish window-operations in OS X are wrong as well. Because, as we all know, everything in OS X is fast and perfect.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    13. Re:you're confused by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thats why I see tons of ghosting when I move windows around on my Ubuntu box yet my sister's Powerbook (which is far weaker) does not.

      That has nothing to do with the X Window System, it has to do with two things: the quality of your X11 implementation (including drivers) and the window redraw strategy your applications choose.

      (Quartz isn't actually all that efficient or well implemented even compared to X.org; most of the slickness of OS X seems to be the result of some simple buffering hacks.)

      Damage on Xorg is only tolerable for me with xcompmgr running- saying its ahead of either OSX or Windows makes me laugh!

      Again, you're confusing an implementation (X.org) with the X Window System. The design of the X window system is far ahead of both OS X and Windows. In terms of code quality, I don't know how they compare (Quartz and Windows being closed source). In terms of drivers, X.org, of course, has to struggle, but they are doing a pretty good job under the circumstances.

    14. Re:you're confused by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Really? Then why does my CPU-usage spike up when I move and resize windows in my Mac Mini?

      Because the Mini's graphics card is really weak! With my sister's Powerbook (64 mb of ram) its MUCH better.

    15. Re:you're confused by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Because the Mini's graphics card is really weak!


      If windows-manipulation in OS X was "entirely GPU-based" it would not have any effect on the CPU-usage. But since it DOES have an effect, then it's NOT entirely GPU-based.

      And the GPU on the Mini is not THAT weak. It's a lot better than any of the integrated GPU's we often see in low-end machines.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    16. Re:you're confused by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0

      Really? Then why does my CPU-usage spike up when I move and resize windows in my Mac Mini?

      Any number of reasons, but I repeat because it's 100% true--moving a window is a GPU-based graphics operation. It's just blitting to a different place via the GPU. If you don't believe me, I don't know what else to say, kid. It's completely true. Windows in OS X are OpenGL faces, which is how you get things like Expose.

      Yeah, the reviewers at Ars Technica don't know what they are talking about. And all those people complaining around the net about the sluggish window-operations in OS X are wrong as well. Because, as we all know, everything in OS X is fast and perfect.

      Your only retort is overt exaggeration and sarcasm. Whatever. Your appeal to consensus is meaningless. Dragging a window is NOT SLUGGISH on a Mac mini. It's totally smooth. Window resizing isn't the smoothest, but that improved vastly in Tiger, particularly resizing Finder windows. But you said moving windows around, which is completely smooth on a Mac mini and even my old iBook. It's just blitting to a different area on screen.

      It's absolutely clear there's something else going on with your machine. Either that or you're lying for karma points.

      Next.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    17. Re:you're confused by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Any number of reasons, but I repeat because it's 100% true--moving a window is a GPU-based graphics operation. It's just blitting to a different place via the GPU. If you don't believe me, I don't know what else to say, kid. It's completely true. Windows in OS X are OpenGL faces, which is how you get things like Expose.


      I'm well aware that OS X uses the GPU in rendering the GUI. But claiming that "it's 100% done in the GPU" is pure bullshit. If it were "100% done in the GPU", there would be NO CPU-spike. But since there is, it means that the CPU is working when manipulating the windows. Why else would the CPU-usage spike? Pure coincidence? I think not.

      Dragging a window is NOT SLUGGISH on a Mac mini.


      I talked about dragging and resizing. And resizing is downright awful. I just tried it. Resizing Finder-window causes both Finder and WindowServer to consume over 40% of CPU time both. 100% GPU-based? Hardly. If it were, why does it consume so much CPU-power?

      It's totally smooth. Window resizing isn't the smoothest, but that improved vastly in Tiger, particularly resizing Finder windows.


      Again: Ars Techinca testd tiger with 2x G5 and 2GB of RAM. And they complained that while it is better in Tiger, it's still not perfect. And considering that machine with TWO fast CPU's, good vid-card and metric assload of RAM STILL struggles with something as simple as window-manipulation, tells me that it's not a rosegarden in OS X either.

      It's absolutely clear there's something else going on with your machine. Either that or you're lying for karma points.


      So when I say that my CPU-usage spikes when I manipulate windows on my Mac Mini, it means that "there's something wrong with my machine" or that I'm lying? First: why would I lie about something like this? I'm not anti-OS X, in fact, I use it daily by choice. And the machine it standard Mini with extra RAM. Apps I have tested are iLife apps and other Apple-software. And the fact is that when I manipulate the windows, my CPU-usage spikes. I'm still on Panther, so that might have something to do with it. But by all account, speed of the UI is still not perfect on Tiger, even on hi-end machines.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    18. Re:you're confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      Overly Critical Guy (aka bonch, et al)

  35. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    okay lets try this "Linux(r)" is the kernel image and assosiated /lib/modules files (aka what you get when you run make bZImage && make modules on the archive from kernel.org) GNU is just about everything above this point so you could say the gnus do the work but the penguin gets them going (until hurd gets to a useful point)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  36. Re:Hmm. Some people don't like rapid change. by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 1

    Yes, wait another 10 years :P

  37. X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by SimHacker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The X-Windows Disaster

    X-Windows is the Iran-Contra of graphical user interfaces: a tragedy of political compromises, entangled alliances, marketing hype, and just plain greed. X-Windows is to memory as Ronald Reagan was to money. Years of "Voodoo Ergonomics" have resulted in an unprecedented memory deficit of gargantuan proportions. Divisive dependencies, distributed deadlocks, and partisan protocols have tightened gridlocks, aggravated race conditions, and promulgated double standards.

    X has had its share of $5,000 toilet seats -- like Sun's Open Look clock tool, which gobbles up 1.4 megabytes of real memory! If you sacrificed all the RAM from 22 Commodore 64s to clock tool, it still wouldn't have enough to tell you the time. Even the vanilla X11R4 "xclock" utility consumed 656K to run. And X's memory usage is increasing.

    Official Dangerous Virus notice distributed at the X-Windows Conference.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    1. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Most unsightful comment ever.

      My gnome+mozilla+gaim takes 220MB of ram.

      My win32 desktop + mozilla + gaim takes 300MB of ram.

      I think X is doing just fine.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by urbanRealist · · Score: 1

      You left out X. On my Gentoo system, X is currently using 195 MB of memory. Note, however, that this is to run KDE, Firefox, XMMS, etc (each of which consumes additional memory). On my XFCE machine at work, the memory used is less.

      --
      I've seen a lot of things, but I've never been a witness.
    3. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      that's nothing to brag about

      for one, no standard windows desktop should take up 300mb of ram.

      You could also try running applications that use the operating system's native windowing toolkit. Gaim has a buttload of overhead on windows because it needs to load all of GTK into memory in addition to the normal Win32 windowing toolkit. Ditto for Mozilla.

      A better comparison would have been
      Win32 with IE and AIM versus KDE with Konqueror and whatever KDE's instant messaging program is. Once you start mixing toolkits, RAM usage goes through the roof.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      Are you actually bragging that your desktop requires as much memory as 3,520 Commodode 64's? Why does that make you think X-Windows is doing just fine?

      A single Commodore 64 can draw a clock on the screen, with most of its 64K of memory left over. How many C64s worth of memory does X-Windows require to tell the time?

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    5. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Can your commodore display a 720x480 full colour 30fps motion picture without lag in software mode? in overlay mode [if HW present?]? Over a remote network connection?

      Yeah, didn't think so.

      X may be bloat [which I don't generally agree with] but it isn't a simple "linear frame buffer driver". You're just a retard who is latching on to some disgrunted 40 yr old hacks disdain for something which rightly or wrongly became popular.

      Don't like the state of X? fork x.org and improve it or make constructive critisms. Any assclown can regurgitate someone elses complaints as if they're their own. It takes real inteligence to form cogent concerns and bring them up in a manner most aptly to be addressed.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    6. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      that's for the kernel, gnome, gaim and mozilla. Not just X.

      Mozilla on it's own takes up 30-50MB, gaim another 15, gnome about 50-75MB, etc.

      There is more bloat out there than just what is in X. But what you peeps fail to see is X is not a single solution package. It's used by people with a variety of hardware configurations. It doesn't just provide a linear frame buffer to work with either.

      Is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it in X alone? No.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    7. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My win32 desktop + mozilla + gaim takes 300MB of ram.

      Yeah, thats because Moz chews up hundreds of megs of RAM itself.

      Minus that crud, I can stay under 100MB easily.

    8. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      my point though

      win32: moz+gaim+desktop == 300mb
      linux with X: moz+gaim+gnome 300mb

      Assuming moz isn't vastly different in Linux as it is in Windows I'd say that bodes well.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    9. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Windows should be using GTK or Qt as its native toolkit. Duh!!

    10. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you have a 128 MB video card? The thing is, X is the only program using the video card, so instead of some fancy malloc() thing which gets fragmented, the X server will just grab the entire video card for itself. And - at least on Linux - that memory gets counted too by top.

      As for the rest, the X-server creates a lot of stuff (bitmaps, pixmaps) for programs, and it gets counted as X-server memory too. Like heavy use of tabs to view images in Firefox can bring the X-server to 512 MB. Most of those are the images that Firefox is going to display.

    11. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by Mancat · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've seen these pages too, but then I remember that they're almost fifteen years old, and X is quite different now then it was then. Some fundamental design flaws remain, but much of the other idiocies have been resolved. This new build system solves what was probably the worst design issue of the X codebase.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    12. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      FYI, I'm not latching onto or regurgitating someone else's complaints as if they're my own -- I wrote that chapter in the Unix Haters handbook, based on years of experience with X. I attended the original X conference at MIT, and I've been using X since X10, ported SimCity to X11, developed a multi player user interface for SimCity that supported multiple servers connected to the same X11 client, and sold multiplayer SimCity as a commercial product in 1992. So I think I have the right to complain about the shortcomings of X, without being accused of regurgitating someone else's opinion.

      Here's some nifty X10 window manager code I wrote in Forth in 1986:

      X.f - X10 window system interface for Forth.
      Xlib.f - X10 XLib interface for Forth.
      xutil.f - X10 utilities for Forth.
      uwm.f - X10 uwm window manager interface for Forth.
      load-fuwm.f - X10 uwm library loader for Forth window manager.
      fuwm-main.f - X10 Forth window manager main driver.
      menulist.f - pie menus and linear menus for Forth window manager. hacks.f - X10 Forth window manager hacks.

      I extended Gancarz's original X10 "uwm" window manager in C to support pie menus, then I broke it up into a library so I could link it into Mitch Bradley's Sun Forth (Forthmacs) and script it in Forth. We used it to perform an experiment comparing pie menus and linear menus. (Pie menus won hand down!)

      The last file (hacks.f) is especially fun, because it lets you pick up windows and fling them around the screen, so any number of windows will bounce around on the screen with inertia and gravity and friction, each with their own Forth task. It ran quite fast on a 4 meg Sun 3/50, with enough room for Emacs to bounce around too.

      Programming a window manager with a stack based language foreshadowed the work I later did with the NeWS window system and user interface toolkit, which is an extensible window system written by James Gosling, scripted in PostScript.

      Ever heard of AJAX? NeWS did cool stuff that X still can't touch 20 years later, like dynamically downloading code to the server to define efficient application specific protocols and implememt locally interactive custom user interfaces. AJAX is not a new idea, and it wasn't even invented by Microsoft: NeWS was totally "AJAXian" 20 years ago, but with PostScript code instead of JavaScript, PostScript graphics instead of HTML, and PostScript data instead of XML -- much more consistent and easier to program than AJAX's potpourri of incompatible standards!

      Believe it or not: with NeWS, you could actually draw circles and diagonal lines in PostScript without making a remote procedure call to download an image (like Google Maps has to do, in order to support Firefox).

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    13. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't just provide a linear frame buffer to work with either."

      The graphics model provided by X11 is that of a MicroVAX framebuffer on acid.

      ("What's a MicroVax"? A tiny little personal VAX. "What's a VAX?" It's an old minicomputer from DEC. "Why should I care?" Because its ancient design still deeply effects the X11 graphics model.)

      -Don

      Myth: X is "Device Independent"

      X is extremely device dependent because all X graphics are specified in pixel coordinates. Graphics drawn on different resolution screens come out at different sizes, so you have to scale all the coordinates yourself if you want to draw at a certain size. Not all screens even have square pixels: unless you don't mind rectangular squares and oval circles, you also have to adjust all coordinates according to the pixel aspect ratio.

      A task as simple as filing and stroking shapes is quite complicated because of X's bizarre pixel-oriented imaging rules. When you fill a 10x10 square with XFillRectangle, it fills the 100 pixels you expect. But you get extra "bonus pixels" when you pass the same arguments to XDrawRectangle, because it actually draws an 11x11 square, hanging out one pixel below and to the right!!! If you find this hard to believe, look it up in the X manual yourself: Volume 1, Section 6.1.4. The manual patronizingly explains how easy it is to add 1 to the x and y position of the filled rectangle, while subtracting 1 from the width and height to compensate, so it fits neatly inside the outline. Then it points out that "in the case of arcs, however, this is a much more difficult proposition (probably impossible in a portable fashion)." This means that portably filling and stroking an arbitrarily scaled arc without overlapping or leaving gaps is an intractable problem when using the X Window System. Think about that. You can't even draw a proper rectangle with a thick outline, since the line width is specified in unscaled pixel units, so if your display has rectangular pixels, the vertical and horizontal lines will have different thicknesses even though you scaled the rectangle corner coordinates to compensate for the aspect ratio.

      The color situation is a total flying circus. The X approach to device independence is to treat everything like a MicroVAX framebuffer on acid. A truly portable X application is required to act like the persistent customer in Monty Python's "Cheese Shop" sketch, or a grail seeker in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Even the simplest applications must answer many difficult questions:

      WHAT IS YOUR DISPLAY?

      display = XOpenDisplay("unix:0");

      WHAT IS YOUR ROOT?

      root = RootWindow(display, DefaultScreen(display));

      AND WHAT IS YOUR WINDOW?

      win = XCreateSimpleWindow(display, root, 0, 0, 256, 256, 1, BlackPixel(display, DefaultScreen(display)), WhitePixel(display, DefaultScreen(display)));

      OH ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN GO ON.

      WHAT IS YOUR DISPLAY?

      display = XOpenDisplay("unix:0");

      WHAT IS YOUR COLORMAP?

      cmap = DefaultColormap(display, DefaultScreen(display));

      AND WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE COLOR?

      favorite_color = 0; /* Black. */
      /* Whoops! No, I mean: */
      favorite_color = BlackPixel(display, DefaultScreen(display));
      /* AAAYYYYEEEEE!! */

      (client dumps core & falls into the chasm)

      WHAT IS YOUR DISPLAY?

      display = XOpenDisplay("unix:0");

      WHAT IS YOUR VISUAL?

      struct XVisualInfo vinfo;
      if (XMatchVisualInfo(display, DefaultScreen(display), 8, PseudoColor, &vinfo) != 0) visual = vinfo.visual;

      AND WHAT IS THE NET SPEED VELOCITY OF AN XConfigureWindow REQUEST?

      /* Is that a SubStructureRedirectMask or a ResizeRedirectMask? */

      WHAT??! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT? AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!! (server dumps core & falls into the chasm)

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    14. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Yeah congrats you can copy paste [probably in X no less]. Can you do anything original? Or is that the best you can come up with? Some lunatics rant from 1994.

      I've programmed in GTK+ and Motif and both weren't too hard to work with.

      X11 may be hard but that's WHY we have things like Motif and GTK+ [and QT and Cairo and ...]

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    15. Re:X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Yeah congrats you can copy paste [probably in X no less]. Can you do anything original? Or is that the best you can come up with? Some lunatics rant from 1994. I've programmed in GTK+ and Motif and both weren't too hard to work with. Yeah, well... he did write a chunk of X10, quite a few libraries that influenced X11, and also was an author of NeWS, which is generally considered to be one of the better interfaces ever written. I'd say he's qualified to comment.

      Oh, plus I think he may have written that rant originally... it certainly jibes with the sarcasm in his published writings about X and display architecture design.

      So... what did you write in GTK+ and Motif?

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  38. It's just that... by cloricus · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...X.org was touched by His Noodly Appendage!

    --
    I ate your fish.
  39. What other improvements are we expecting to see by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I used to X with a passion when I first started using linux back in 98. Actually I still do and think its bloated and horrible but with modern hardware its doable now.

    The unix haters manual has alot of nice things to say about it. :-)

    But seriously people have run X on VMS systems running in as little 3-4 megs of ram. Also ol linux users ran X fine with ONLY 8 MEGS OF RAM back in the 486 days.

    X is not bad but perhaps Xorg sucks? What I want to know is if they are planning on cutting down on memory and cpu usage and adding features like sound support, transparent objects, anti-aligned fonts (I think support is added now), resolution changes that dont require a reboot, ajax/caml/dashboard or some xml and javascript support , and other technologies. Its still quite behind macosx and windows and since its free I hope it catches up. Also automatic scanning of video and monitors would be nice. Come on its 2005.

    I hope Xorg moves along and creates a better X and so far its a step in teh right direction.

    1. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by Roguelazer · · Score: 2, Informative
      • Transparent objects: XCOMPOSITE
      • Anti-aliased fonts: XRENDER + Freetype (this has been used for a long time)
      • Resolution Changes: XRANDR
      • AJAX: Please remove the crack pipe from your mouth before speaking or posting
      • Automatic scanning of video and monitors: X -configure
      • X doesn't take up most of the memory, what lives in X does. IE: GNOME, KDE, etc.
    2. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by aconkling · · Score: 5, Informative

      I used to X with a passion when I first started using linux back in 98.
      Oh, man, those were the days... when you could not only X but X with a passion. [sighs wistfully]

      X is not bad but perhaps Xorg sucks?
      Nope. Next question.

      What I want to know is if they are planning on [...] adding features like sound support,
      Sound support is handled by a sound server, which fortunately runs independently of X.

      transparent objects,
      You mean like compositing?

      anti-aligned fonts (I think support is added now),
      Keep your magnet away from my monitor!

      resolution changes that dont require a reboot,
      Resolution changes don't require a reboot, just a restart of X.

      ajax/caml/dashboard or some xml and javascript support ,
      Huh?! AJAX is for the Web, CAML is a proprietary language, so of course X.org isn't written therein, and I'm not sure in what way you mean "support for XML or Javascript" other than to say that extensions/plugins/modules (whatever the X people call them) would be significantly slower if written in these languages. Since it seems that you're "concerned" with X's bloat, I'm sure you understand why that'd be a bad idea.

      I actually hope this was helpful, but if I was just the unwitting victim of flamebait, I can roll with it.

    3. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by typical · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is if they are planning on [...] adding features like sound support,
      Sound support is handled by a sound server, which fortunately runs independently of X.


      While you can certainly set up network-remote sound, few people do. It just turns out that there are incredibly few applications where sound is actually used -- most of 'em are things like media players and games. With games, you frequently want to run the thing locally for performance reasons, and with media player, it's just more efficient to access the (generally compressed) media files over the network than it is to decompress the audio and stream it decompressed over the network.

      Resolution changes don't require a reboot, just a restart of X.
      I think that he was talking about changing the pixel dimensions of the desktop. You can cycle through all the auto-detected or specified resolutions in modern X (control-alt-keypad+ or -keypad-). If you don't want to have the desktop scroll with your mouse, try xrandr -s 640x480 or similar.

      Except for full-screen applications using DGA, changing the color depth is out (but, to be honest, palettes were a horrible hack, and I'm very glad to have seen the last of them -- I can't think of any modern apps that require, say, 8-bit color).

      I actually hope this was helpful, but if I was just the unwitting victim of flamebait, I can roll with it.

      Actually, it was a troll, but even trolls can spawn useful information.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    4. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by mike3k · · Score: 1
      ajax/caml/dashboard or some xml and javascript support

      In other words, widgets like Dashboard or Konfabulator^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Yahoo Widgets.

    5. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by AJWM · · Score: 1

      palettes were a horrible hack, and I'm very glad to have seen the last of them

      Oh, they have their uses, particulary in an app where you want to visually manipulate all pixels with value = N in some way, without wasting time. I.e. instead of doing something like:

            for (x=0; x < image.width; x++) {
                    for (y=0; y < image.height; y++) {
                            if (pixel_at(image, x, y) == N) {
                                    set_pixel(image, x, y, some_new_value);
                            }
                    }
              }


      I'd rather just do something like

              set_palette(N, some_new_value);


      This is especially true where I want to highlight something (a feature on a map, say) by blinking it (toggling between two different colors). Although it's true enough that simple one-time changes (eg using false color to emphasize a subtle difference in a grayscale image) are pretty fast on modern hardware.

      X lets you (in theory, and if the hardware supports it) do different visuals for different windows, so you could have 24-bit direct in most of the display with selected 8-bit pseudocolor windows for apps that need it. In theory. If the hardware supports it.

      --
      -- Alastair
    6. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by shaitand · · Score: 1

      automatic scanning would mean that the scanning occurs automatically, on the fly, in direct response to me plugging in a different monitor or video card. As opposed to me having to manually issue a command. Basically, my grandmother should not need my help to change her monitor.

    7. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by ookaze · · Score: 3, Informative

      Resolution changes don't require a reboot, just a restart of X.

      Actually they don't require a restart of X either. The only thing that require a restart of X is a depth change (though I'm not even sure that it actually requires restart of X), like from 32 bpp to 16 bpp.
      It was never a problem to me, and I think very few people will need to switch to less than 32 bpp (or rather 24 bpp).

    8. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Color resolution, you insensitive clod

    9. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Built into the X server? In God's name why?

    10. Re:What other improvements are we expecting to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can run X on OpenVMS that takes only 4-8 megs of ram. Why does it take 64 with Xorg/Xfree86? Why Can't I run X on an old pentium 66 with 16 megs of ram?

      Why should grandma have to hit alt-backspace and restart X to setup her maximum resolution. She doesn't know how to type commands from a terminal.

      Xorg sucks and so does X. Look behind your zealotry. X really sucks and the unixhaters manual makes great strides explaining it.

      If X is modular then the bloat can be controlled and functionality switched off. I dont buy your argument. Even windowmaker takes 64 megs of ram just to load and how much of it is used by X? There was a special version of KDE using QT embedded several years back that was much faster and used 1/4th the amount of memory.

      Not everyone has a blazing pentiumIV with 512 megs of ram. The kids with the new $100 computers from MIT labs will be hurt by X as it will probably take up all the resources on these machines.

      There are many X servers that are commerical and Free86 is the worst one on the market.

  40. Auto-configuration by EdMcMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully this will mean that soon X will be able to probe more and use the config file less.

    Anyway, it is great that X.org is finally bringing some more work on X. XFree was content to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for the most part.

    1. Re:Auto-configuration by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      I do hope you're only referring to a configuration script, not something that runs every time I start X. That way, I have final control over the settings, in case of odd hardware setups.

  41. Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by joto · · Score: 4, Informative
    but X11 is moving more and more out of the main stream and into the non-user and highly geek distros only

    So what are the main stream using these days? Fresco? Qt/Embedded? The Y Window System? rio?

    and even there, I know many Debian users, for example, who are eager to switch to X.org.

    Debian IS using xorg (only stable and maybe testing still uses Xfree86)

    Since you are obviously confused, let me clarify. "X", "X11", and "The X Window System" all refers to the same thing. It is a specification for a way of displaying and interacting with graphics in windows on a computer and/or through a network.

    X.org used to be the organization that coordinated that specification between various vendors of X11. It also maintained a "reference implementation" that nobody used. Then X11-innovation stagnated among the major unix vendors. X.org slowly died, and XFree86 (a "vendor", and a free implementation) became the defacto standard. Then XFree86 (the organization, not the implementation) did something stupid with their license, and the code was forked by mostly the same people that used to work on XFree86, and they decided to call themselves X.org (and their implementation xorg), since the name now was available).

    Today, most everybody uses xorg, not XFree86. This is an update to xorg. To end-users it means zilch, apart from the fact that it's better for developers, and they can expect to see some innovation finally happen in the X11-world (well, in the long-term at least!)

    1. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are the main stream using these days? Fresco? Qt/Embedded? The Y Window System? rio?

      Quartz.

    2. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Does this mean all those binaries under /usr/bin/X11R6 are going to be moved to /usr/bin/X11R7?

      For that matter, what was the criteria between whether something was put in /usr/bin or /usr/bin/X11R6?

    3. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by someone300 · · Score: 1

      Well, not sure about other distros, but Gentoo has been putting the x11 into the /usr/{lib,bin...} folders, and just has /usr/X11R6 as a symlink:
      lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 2005-04-16 06:30 /usr/X11R6 -> ../usr

    4. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Debian potato, then sarge, here.

      I think all the core X11 stuff was put in /usr/bin/X11R6/*, while everything else was put in /usr/bin.

    5. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by joto · · Score: 1
      Does this mean all those binaries under /usr/bin/X11R6 are going to be moved to /usr/bin/X11R7?

      Hopefully they will move where they belong: /usr/bin

      For that matter, what was the criteria between whether something was put in /usr/bin or /usr/bin/X11R6?

      My guess is that because slackware did it, everybody else did it too. Or maybe the sources just came packaged that way, and nobody bothered to edit the sources. Most likely, this happened long before the linux filesystem hierarchy standard. I have no idea why it has survived as long as it has. It is just annoying.

      We have /usr/bin, /usr/X11R6/bin, /usr/bin/X11, and /etc/X11, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11, and /usr/share/fonts, /etc/X11/fonts, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts, and so on...

    6. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, will there ever be an X12?

      --
      I am Spartacus
    7. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DirectX.

    8. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

      Avalon.

      --
      N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    9. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Random832 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean all those binaries under /usr/bin/X11R6 are going to be moved to /usr/bin/X11R7?

      Hopefully they will move where they belong: /usr/bin


      Or /usr/local/bin

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    10. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what bothers me so much when I read that it "supports Linux and Solaris at this time". Where is the reference implementation? Where's the coordination among vendors? Is this idea completely dead? It used to be that X.org held the standard, while XFree86 was the main PC implementation. Now XFree86 is essentially dead, X.org is the PC implementation... and the idea of a standard seems to have fallen by the wayside.

      Someone, please, tell me I'm talking out of my ass. Is X11R7, despite being for "Linux and Solaris", still a reasonable base from which to develop a completely non-PC X server? Maybe the modularization helps... maybe the old reference implementation wasn't really any more portable?

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    11. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not anytime soon. There would have to be a change important enough to break all earlier programs (including games from companies that don't exist anymore, e.g. Loki. I.e. not very likely, or the culprit will be crucified by a bunch of angry geeks who can't play their favorite games anymore).

      It has only happened once, from X10 (no, not the cameras) to X11. The huge change that was important enought to break anything? COLORS. The X11 protocol however, is extensible enough that this shouldn't be necessary again.

      Btw, the version numbers are misleading, they should actually be X1.0 and X1.1, but someone decided on X10 and X11.

    12. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by po8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're talking out of your ass. :-) OK, not really, but you and parent seem a bit confused.

      In the beginning was the MIT X Consortium. They published the first standards documents for X, funded development of an X test suite to check implementations for standards compliance, and published a "sample" server that was supposed to be a sound implementation of the standards, as well as client-side libraries and utilities. Bob Scheiffler, Keith Packard, and Jim Fulton were the early developers here, with Scheiffler running the technical work and developing most of the architecture.

      At some point, MIT and the X Consortium parted company. Some time later, the X Consortium became X/Open, and sometime later X.org.

      During this evolution, the XFree86 folks forked the X code and documentation, and started their own development branch. Control of a few assets still remained with X/Open/X.org, and X.org continued to do X support and be used by some commercial vendors, but the X.org work was largely ignored by the PC community.

      Recently, most of the X developers became disenchanted with the way XFree86 was being run, and forked X again under the aegis of freedesktop.org. For a variety of good reasons, the outcome of this was to reorganize X.org as a community-source-style foundation for X development. Current open source X work is done almost entirely under the aegis of X.org/freedesktop.org.

      So, the standards are independent of the sample implementation, which is not really a reference implementation at all. To answer your other questions; the PC/Solaris only thing is just to push R7 out the door. The hope is to include all the other supported platforms in the "roll up" release due soon.

      If I were building a non-PC X server right now, I'd use Kdrive instead of Xorg as a starting point unless I needed some of the advanced features of Xorg such as DRI support. Kdrive is shipped with current X.org distributions, including R6.9 and R7.

      Hope this helps.

    13. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Xorg7 RC's, the /usr symlink to /X11R? has been completely deleted.

    14. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GDI ;-)

    15. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by octopus72 · · Score: 1

      Eventually you can develop extensions which will fully or mostly replace old ones, but keep those for supporting legacy apps. At that point it is best to announce new version of protocol. I don't know why they don't use minor, compatible versions of protocol, OpenGL-like scheme. Many ubiquitous extensions could be defined as a standard that way.

    16. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Probably not. X11 is the protocol. Things like the Xfixes extension modify the protocol without breaking backward compatibility, so we're unlikely to have to leave X11 behind in the foreseeable future.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    17. Re:Uhmm, what are you talkin about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or /opt/X11/bin

  42. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Well, my filesystem isn't GNU, my X-Windows aren't GNU, my KDE isn't GNU, my Java, Eclipse, Apache, MYSQL and Firebird aren't GNU. My system is KDE/GNU/SUN/Apache/MYSQL/Firebird/myownscripts/oth erstuff/Linux. Only a very small portion of the system is GNU really ;) I just say I run SUSE, although I'm sure RMS wouldn't like that.

  43. Keep in mind, .... by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That just 1.5 years ago, X.org was GONE. NADA. ZILCH. NYET. By X.org picking up Xfree's work and pushing a major fork, they were able to leap ahead. Well, in a short time, we may see Xfree do the same. It is possible for them to fork X.org's and take it all in a better direction and faster.

    This is OSS raised to the power of 2, instead of divide by 2.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Keep in mind, .... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess you forgot that XFree has an unacceptable license that means few Linux distro maintainers could include it.

    2. Re:Keep in mind, .... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      All things either change or die. If they fork from X.org, they will have to change the license issue to be able to hope to survive. Or the community will have a change of heart (highly unlikely).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  44. What about Linux ? by Khalid · · Score: 1

    You mean exactly like Wikipedia ;) that's how all the software should be designed, but I wonder if its possible. I remember reading Linus a while ago saying that he refuses to modulize Linux (i.e split it in relatively small modules communicating among them with a set of stable API, this also sounds like the micro kernel architecture he is notoriously againt) as long as it has not completly stabilised (not in the buggy sens), but till all the infrastrucre is not there yet. If the new X is a success may he will review his judgment, this will bring more hackers to the Kernel.

    1. Re:What about Linux ? by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      That is rather different. For X.org this is just a different build system, and 6.9 (monolithic) and 7.0 (modular) produce exactly the same code. The linux kernel would have to be completely redesigned from scratch. For linux to become a microkernel it would have to be completely redesigned, and rewritten from scratch if its going to work at all well.

    2. Re:What about Linux ? by quizzicus · · Score: 1

      Isn't this exactly what they're trying to do in Hurd?

  45. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why not get rid of the Linux kernel completely and use a different kernel with an lx zone?

  46. Overhead of maintaining multiple trees? by cmason · · Score: 1
    What's the overhead of this in terms of management? Do they maintain separate trees? How automated? The notion of simultaneous releases of two very different source layouts/build systems seems nightmarish to me.

    -c

    --
    "If you are an idealist it doesn't matter what you do or what goes on around you, because it isn't real anyway."-R.P.W.
    1. Re:Overhead of maintaining multiple trees? by krmt · · Score: 1

      The way it was managed is that a skeleton tree was created with just the build system. A script was also written to symlink the actual sources from the monolithic tree to the modular skeleton tree, so that there was only one real tree to work from depending on what you were doing. Very late in the release process, the files were actually copied over so that the same changes had to go in to both places, but his happened so late that it didn't really matter so much. Now the old monolithic tree is closed for most commits and the modular tree is the de facto tree. All in all a very well planned and smooth transition.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    2. Re:Overhead of maintaining multiple trees? by cmason · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks. -c

      --
      "If you are an idealist it doesn't matter what you do or what goes on around you, because it isn't real anyway."-R.P.W.
  47. When can we expect X12? by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

    Or Y?

    --
    The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    1. Re:When can we expect X12? by vga_init · · Score: 1
    2. Re:When can we expect X12? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and dead, already?

    3. Re:When can we expect X12? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Or Y?

      You mean Y Windows?

      I ask myself that all the time...

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. more features! by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Informative

    This new x.org version is not just about autotooling the server

    From http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ChangesSince68

    * New EXA acceleration architecture, with experimental support in sis(4), radeon(4), i128(4) (more to come)
    * Individual extensions may be enabled or disabled on the command line using the -extension flag
    * Improved chipset probing for IA64
    * SecureRPC enabled on Linux by default
    * Updated savage(4), including dualhead and DRI support
    * Updated XRX support
    * Fixes to rootless mode for Cygwin and Darwin ports
    * Numerous K&R-to-ANSI C conversions
    * Many Darwin fixes
    * Updated XvMC support, enabling generic loading of hardware-specific drivers
    * Added wsfb(4) video driver for OpenBSD and NetBSD framebuffer consoles
    * Numerous ATI driver updates from the GATOS project, including TV input support
    * More support for enhanced visuals like 12-bit PseudoColor and 30-bit TrueColor
    * Improved ProPolice support
    * Updates to nv(4) driver from XFree86 and nVIDIA
    * via(4) updates from the Unichrome project, including DRI support
    * i810(4) updates, including i915GM/E7721/i945G support and shadowfb support
    * Improved module loader support for Alpha chips
    * Added mingw port for native Win32 builds
    * Updated PCI scanning
    * Added DMA support to radeon(4) for Render and Xv operations
    * Experimental DRI support for Radeon 9500 and above
    * Updated xterm to #204 from [WWW]upstream
    * Added evdev(4) input driver for generic input handling on Linux
    * Switched to libdl-based module loader
    * Improved acceleration for sunffb(4)
    * MMX blending routines for the Render extension
    * sis(4) updates
    * New sisusb(4) driver for USB-attached video
    * Tiled framebuffer support for radeon(4)
    * Initial support for running the Xorg server without root privileges
    * Improved acceleration for newport(4)
    * Add DragonFly BSD support
    * Update bundled Freetype to 2.1.9
    * r128(4) dualhead support
    * mach64(4) TV-OUT support
    * ATI Theater 200 video decoder support
    * SGI Altix support
    * Disabled antique [WWW]DPS extension
    * Support for FreeBSD/powerpc
    * Enhanced software Render core
    * Support for more than 12 buttons in the generic mouse(4) driver
    * Better support for DRI on 64-bit platforms
    * Solaris support updates: enhanced mouse driver, agpgart support, experimental AMD64 support, kbd(4) support, /dev/audio keyboard bell option
    * Output-only windows
    * Non-rectangular mergedfb desktops
    * Update bundled fontconfig to 2.3.2

    1. Re:more features! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Holy shit my god damn christ

      • Numerous ATI driver updates from the GATOS project, including TV input support

      I bought a Radeon 64MB DDR VIVO (now referred to as the "Radeon 7200") back when they were new (what was that, 2000?). At that time the GATOS people were limping along with the thought that their drivers will get merged into X "real soon". Now that I finally gave up on that card and bought an ivtv Hauppauge THEY FINALLY MERGE THE DRIVERS.

    2. Re:more features! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there was a political coup. and they had to take care of rounding up the old X developers and disposing of them bolshivik-style before they could merge your driver.

    3. Re:more features! by psergiu · · Score: 1

      > * Disabled antique [WWW]DPS extension

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!! NO WAY !!! And it wasn't replaced with DPDF - they just dropped it :(
      This sucks. One more reason to use OSX.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    4. Re:more features! by labratuk · · Score: 1

      X developers are more interested in code than buzzwords like PDF. So if you think differently then yes, you should probably buy a computer from Apple.

      I'm sure you're one of these people who believe that OSX's interface is all vector based and completely opengl accelerated and all based on PDFs. Well here's some news - 99% of it isn't.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. A more recent take on X by Sam+Haine+'95 · · Score: 1
  52. Effect on Debian users by mu22le · · Score: 1

    Man, I was going to write exactly the same sentence.
    With a note. You can probably expect an "HOWTO build your own xorg7 .deb package" in a few weeks and a backport to sarge (or even etch, maybe) in a few months. If I have spare time I'll go for the build your own...

    1. Re:Effect on Debian users by krmt · · Score: 1

      6.9 is slated to go in to unstable very soon now. It's basically hinging on confirmation from the release team over the Xrender update (so as not to cause too many transitions going on at once), some basic package polish, and the time it takes to build and upload the monster. 6.9 has the exact same source base as 7.0, so users should have the newest drivers available to them soon without having to resort to massive workarounds. Work on 7.0 is currently ongoing in the X Strike Force subversion repo, but 6.9 should tide people over at least until 7.1 comes out, thereby letting the team get the modular packages in acceptable shape.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    2. Re:Effect on Debian users by mu22le · · Score: 1

      Wow. Thank you!
      BTW do you expect a backport to sarge to be available anytime?
      (well... xorg6.9 maybe the reason I was waiting for to start using unstable again)

    3. Re:Effect on Debian users by krmt · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I'd imagine there will be a backport. It depends on whether libxrender can be easily backported, but I haven't looked at that myself.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  53. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Please show some respect! The proper name is "GNU/X11R7.0".

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  54. It's just BLOATED, is all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to slim it down,
    But doing that would destroy it.

  55. Idiot.. by msimm · · Score: 1

    Of *all* the vendors I've worked with regarding driver support nVidia is easily the best. And Linux driver support is important (albeit I don't actually sweat the video drivers, but at home) to me because I build/deploy and maintain systems in a prodution environment every day. Adaptec, Supermicro, marvell, SATA RAID, SCSI adapter support, ICK. Drivers can be a real nightmare, at least give credit when credit is due.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  56. Longer building time by DrMorris · · Score: 1

    Accoriding to the german iX magazine, building the modularized X-Server takes about 3x as long as building the "monolithic" version.

    1. Re:Longer building time by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And, pray, build time is a metric for exactly what?

    2. Re:Longer building time by goaty_the_flying_sho · · Score: 1

      It starts faster though.

      Guess which one I do more often. :)

    3. Re:Longer building time by DrMorris · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to complain, I was just amazed by this fact. They mentioned 19 to 75 minutes, that's a damn big difference. And no, I'm not a gentoo kind of guy or something, and I surely won't notice anything of the longer building time with my Debian binaries :-)

    4. Re:Longer building time by DrMorris · · Score: 1

      It's just an interesting fact, nothing less, nothing more. The last time I built the X-Windows-System myself is about 2 years ago and I don't have any reason to do it today.

    5. Re:Longer building time by chundo · · Score: 1

      Probably irrelevant for 99% of the developers though. They might have to sit through an initial build that may be longer, but building and testing incremental changes are where the real time savings comes into play.

    6. Re:Longer building time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course: Building ALL of X has to be slower. But have you actually ever taken a look how much tools and libraries X comprises you won't ever need?
      Compare the whole list for gentoo at http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Modular_Xorg#Unmask_x org-x11 with what you will need under normal circumstances (http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Modular_Xorg#Emerge_ X.org) and guess building which one will be faster :)

  57. wha by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

    A refactor?

    Does this mean my (now utterly obsolete) ATI 9600 Pro will soon work as it was supposed to?

  58. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    Really? Well, my filesystem isn't GNU, my X-Windows aren't GNU...

    There's no shame in that. A lot of people shop at Goodwill these days.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  59. Waiting on the OpenGraphics based video card. by MrSnivvel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since many of the posts are talking about if the latest and greatest card from ATI or nVidia will work with their respective binary-only driver; I feel compelled to mention that there is a project with the intention of getting open spec'd, hardware accellerated video cards out: OpenGraphics. The specs may not be the bleeding edge of current tech, but I personally will appreciate having hardware that can be fully utilized by the OS of my choosing.

  60. That's a shame. by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 0

    Now we can look forward to longer build times, the even worse than imake autocrap tools, and of course, only linux and solaris are supported "for now". Somehow I am not excited.

    1. Re:That's a shame. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Build time is only an issue for developers (and people with lots of time and a passion for watching gcc command lines pass by...), most importantly, usually no one needs to rebuild the whole thing: 99% of the time, you rebuild only the little part you are working on (and, notice, that little part migth have become littler with modularisation). Build time is essentially a non-issue.

      It is quite boring to watch this "autotools suck" meme live on. Sure, they can be a pain, but that is usually solved by RTFM; sure they sometimes feel like you need to perform demonic invocations in order to do something, but they sure work, and do so well enough that the very people who maintain a huge beast like X.org are willing to cope with it. Come up with an alternative, good enough that people are willing to commit themselves to using it in real life projects, and then I'll listen with pleasure to your ramblings about how much autotools suck.

    2. Re:That's a shame. by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

      First of all, people who have to build and package X with their OS care too.

      Second, no autotools do not work. They don't even work all the time on linux distros, nevermind less common unixes. And they were already using a superior alternative, imake.

    3. Re:That's a shame. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      It is quite sad, then, that such an important piece of software is in the hands of idiots, I guess, no?

  61. You'll want to check out the new evdev driver by goaty_the_flying_sho · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I went from this:
    Section "InputDevice"
        Identifier "Mouse1"
        Driver "mouse"
        Option "Protocol" "ExplorerPS/2"
        Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
        Option "MouseButtons" "7"
        Option "ZAxisMapping" "6 7 4 5"
    EndSection
    to this:
    Section "InputDevice"
        Identifier "Mouse1"
        Driver "evdev"
        Option "Device" "/dev/input/wheelmouse"
    EndSection
    Functionality stays the same. It's getting there.
    1. Re:You'll want to check out the new evdev driver by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      You'll want to check out the new evdev driver

      Google suggests that evdev is a Linux specific thing. Sounds kind of like what sysmouse does on FreeBSD -- all the mouse drivers use a common protocol so X.org only has to understand one protocol.

      What X11 really needs, IMO, is real wheel/multiaxis support in the X protocol rather than the hack of mapping to buttons 4 and 5. Also, support for more mouse buttons would be nice.

  62. Omium Flash Potential? by JoeShmoe950 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I heard that the new Exa acceleration system raises the overall omium flash potential (for the lazy, http://www.google.com/search?q=omium+flash). Couldn't this lead to more monitor burn out (even on LCD's), and overheating of graphics cards?

  63. Woohoo, no more imake! by TyrelHaveman · · Score: 1

    As a PC X Server developer for one of the sponsors mentioned above, I am very glad they are phasing out imake. It is a real pain in the you-know-what. It's literally just a bunch of makefiles that make makefiles! On our product in particular, we had a trouble with it, thus generating significant hatred.

    I haven't had a chance to take a look at 7.0 yet, but it's got to be good... at least, there's no way it could be worse than imake!

    1. Re:Woohoo, no more imake! by anothy · · Score: 1

      as opposed to the autotool gunk, which is mostly shell scripts to make makefiles? at least make is designed for this sort of thing.

      sigh... i long for mk...

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  64. Awesome by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 1

    Great going everyone!

  65. OT Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I effected a change in his affect" uses effect as a verb, and affect as a noun, yet it is still correct. The distinction is really bring about/what's been brought about vs influence (and mood).

    1. Re:OT Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, he is correctly referred to as "Mr. Spock" (or by one of his several ranks, depending on the era; but never "Dr." -- that's a different guy).

  66. and also, you fail it at humor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comment was from a book published in 1994, based on mailing list contributions from 91 an 92.

    luser.

  67. YES!!! I have waited so long for this! by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't understand the people saying that nothing big for end users comes with Xorg 7. For me Xorg 7 is my best Christmas present! Am I a Xorg hacker? No, I'm an eye-candy nut!

    With Xorg 7 comes the chance for the first stable composite extension! So Xcompmgr will stop crashing (as much)! Also, by using my own guide I can get an accerated desktop with a ATI 9250 card that uses EXA (which is more stable than Nvidia's renderaccel)! So maybe...just maybe...I can get a Windows 98 level stable accerated desktop before 2005 ends, thereby beating Vista out the gate by a year. And since the KDE compositor is near stable, I can enjoy menu transparancies now when I log into Kubuntu without fear of crashing!

    Also the new driver interface will bring improvements to the closed Nvidia driver once they get their head around it, and my 6600 GT will hopefully give me decent performance with Skippy-xd by the time Dapper comes.

    Of course, this won't help most users because composite won't be turned on by a major distro for at least a year or two but for those of us on the Linux Eye Candy edge there is a whole new world open today.

    By far Xorg is the most primitave part of the Linux desktop compared to the alternatives (especially with Openoffice.org2 out there) and this release is the first step towards the wonderful desktop that OSX people have now and Vista people will have next year. I can't wait soon enough for drop shadows, real transparancies, and minimize effects that do not suck!

    1. Re:YES!!! I have waited so long for this! by tehwizard · · Score: 1

      Ah! Finally somebody who cares about the stuff that really matters :-D . Thanks for the info. I have been dismayed with the lack of progress on the eye-candy front. Maybe now that can start to be addressed.

      From a UI standpoint, a good framework for compositing and transparency will open up the door for awesome innovations... little things that make all the difference. For instance, I don't know if I could survive if I had to go back to life before Quicksilver and Growl and Exposé. A little work with interfaces like this on linux, and a super-light window manager like fluxbox, and we could have a totally new GUI layout. We could get rid of the reliance on cumbersome taskbars and start menues that have plagued (imho) the windowing world for so many years.

      ---
      Don't believe everything you think.

  68. Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the fact that you get modded -1 Redundant for bullshit bingo, maybe all you mods should consider a different job. ;)

  69. We have an open graphics card. by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1

    We have an open graphics card. Its called the ATI 9250. The specs are open- it has the best open source driver in the Xorg display world. Till the OpenGraphics project can beat the power of this card.....its not worth much. And thats why it can't get off the ground!

  70. Why is this imporant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should anyone care about X being updated when 99% of the users need little more than a simple raster graphics device driver?

    Some more rewarding development efforts:
    - Unifying the classes, API, library calls for Perl, python, php, ruby, etc into
        a single code base --> resulting in a significant savings in the amount
        of effort to progress each of the languages

    - Planning a 5 year roadmap to modularize the linux or BSD distro so that
        parts of it can be replaced by a modern OS (e.g., dropping unused parts, providing
        updated, rationalized APIs)

    - Transitioning existing Linux development to a modern BSD licensed OS kernal similar
        to BeOS.

    1. Re:Why is this imporant? by octopus72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      99%? Are you sure? Try using generic vesa driver and see how "fast" it is. It isn't all about drivers. It's also about general architecture improvement, meaning with new driver core (currently only experimental) you will be able to use fast hardware accelerated composite extension. There are also other numerous "under th hood" improvements (brand new MESA for example)and most importantly modularisation of the whole project. Personally I feel that parallel relase of monolithic/modular version wasn't necessary. Much work implemented into something that won't be relevant in 6 months with modular-only 7.1.

  71. How does this effect WM and Desktops? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how the new version will effect window managers and destkop environments like KDE and Gnome. Does anyone know if the name change (presumably directory name) will cause issues building applications, etc? Are we going to have compile headaches with existing X11 software?

    These issues might effect the average linux, bsd or other *nix user.

    I'm also curious on the availability and adoption of x11 r7 on *bsd and in OSX.

    1. Re:How does this effect WM and Desktops? by octopus72 · · Score: 1

      I haven't checked it. But it is simple to do 'lm -s X11R7 X11R6', if you have only 7 on the system, isn't it? It is after all a 6.9 release as well.

  72. Re:Huge step backwards by naer_dinsul · · Score: 1

    "Talk about a HUGE step backwards! X11R6.x supports dozens of platforms. X11R7 supports only two. What a shame."

    Yeah, but for a near-total rewrite/restructuring of a huge-monolithic-behemoth? That ain't easy. I personally offer my own humble kudos to the Xorg team and am excited to see what lays in store for the future.

  73. Latest Ubuntu Release Uses a 6.8/7.0 Hybrid by bottlerocket · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu 5.10, the latest stable version, already uses a hybrid of X.org 6.8.2 and the modular 7.0 release. The development version (aka Dapper) is running X.org 7.0 and is fairly stable at the moment, if you're feeling adventurous.

    --
    where the comment ends and sig begins
  74. GAH, bad timing by mg2 · · Score: 1

    And I JUST downloaded and compiled Xorg stable today... should've checked the /. first.

  75. Man, that's a weak article. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    That Wikipedia article on sound servers you link to is only a half step above useless. Yech. I'll see if I can take a few minutes on it at some point.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  76. OT: Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Symlinks to locations outside a chroot don't work. (If they did, it would subvert the whole idea.) Instead, you have to do something like a "mount --bind" before entering the chroot. More like a hard link than a symlink, but technically neither.

  77. Already ships with the T2 SDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The T2 SDE was an early adapter and helped squashing some bugs in the modualar packages. The current development trunk contains X11R7 RC4 (update expected today) and a LiveCD with X11R7 was already released.

  78. No, it isn't by sfraggle · · Score: 1
    No, it isn't. Read the manpage:

    The X.Org Foundation requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
    • X
    • X Window System
    • X Version 11
    • X Window System, Version 11
    • X11


    I don't know where this "X Window" thing came from. It is wrong. As you can see, the correct name is "X" or "X Window System".
    --
    were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
    1. Re:No, it isn't by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      It came from Uncyclopedia.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  79. Re:Huge step backwards by node+3 · · Score: 1

    Talk about a HUGE step backwards! X11R6.x supports dozens of platforms. X11R7 supports only two. What a shame.

    No, it's a huge(ish) step forwards for Linux and Solaris. The rest have moved forward as well with R6.9.

    WRT end-user features, R6.9 and R7 are essentially equal at the moment. Expect to see support for all the other systems in due time.

  80. Mod up by gottabeme · · Score: 1

    Please.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  81. Re:Let me be the first to say by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
    I love the fact that you get modded -1 Redundant for bullshit bingo, maybe all you mods should consider a different job

    I.e., one where the people who talk at meetings make it possible to play Bullshit Bingo?

  82. META MODDERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please take a look at this. There are no other posts about this prior to the time (and I do not see one at this time)! There is a troll running around.

  83. compile time not really longer... more advantages by aleator · · Score: 1

    the time to build would not be affected (much), because automake tools and ./configure can cache lots of things and then simply resolve them fastly while doing ./configure.

    besides you do not have to build everything at once (well... once you or your package maintainers do, when you now the first time install 7.x), because later, only single pieces would be compiled and this takes only minutes for most stuff.

    also don't forget that if you are building it yourself, you don't need to build a lot of drivers that you don't need. this saves a lot of time (or do you own 30 different graphic cards?)

  84. Have they improved Xlib? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Xlib desperately needs a lot of basic functionality only found
    in extension libraries merged into the core API. For example
    even double buffering (never mind any fancy graphics manipulation)
    is still an extension for chrissake! In 2005!

    Personally though X11.R7 is nice, I think its time we had a complete
    rewrite and brought out X12 for the new millenium.

  85. Resolution changes by po8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Grandparent: "resolution changes that dont require a reboot"

    Parent: "Resolution changes don't require a reboot, just a restart of X"

    Actually, for some time now resolution changes have been possible on the fly using the xrandr utility and associated X extension. On some platforms, xrandr also permits rotating and reflecting the screen on the fly also.

  86. Distro wars by oddityfds · · Score: 1

    Heh, The Red Hat/Fedora way of builing X packages is actually much more sane than the FreeBSD ports way... (RPM will build everything once and split it into multiple binary sub-packages, instead of unpacking and maybe even builing all the sources once for each sub-packages like ports does (or so they tell me).)

  87. Membership problem using Firefox 1.5? by RKBA · · Score: 1
    "Membership is free and open ..."

    Unless you happen to be using Firefox 1.5, in which case you cannot join because (apparently) the referrer information, or lack thereof, that's provided by Firefox is unacceptable to X.org. Anyone else have this problem?

  88. Re:Mild Disclaimer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until hurd gets to a useful point

    Will this be before or after Duke Nukem Forever goes gold?

  89. Your friend might be a cheeseburger dealer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but perhaps you never buy the cheeseburgers directly from McD yourself but you get a friend to do it instead. (Perhaps your friend wears a red fedora, or is a member of the Church of the Subgenius, or always wears spiral designs on his/her clothing, or something else equally strange.) In that case, the only reason to care about light-saber-wielding ninja kangaroos is if they affect your friend's ability to buy cheeseburgers for you, one way or another. If the kangaroos make mistakes that keep you friend from obtaining cheeseburgers, or if your friend is so impressed by their coolness that (s)he just can't stop talking about them, then you care; otherwise, you probably don't.

    And perhaps that's what prompted Jotii's question.

  90. So...when is THIS gonna exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A way to run X servers, have them 'suspend' the present session, then reconnect later, right back where they left off.

    Purpose: To allow end users to power down their X terminals, and reconnect later right where they left off.

  91. What did NeXT use? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1


    Back in the mid-1980s the NeXT had a GUI that was supperior to far more powerful system, even today.

    In terms of raw system power, the NeXT cube would a joke by today's standards, but it had a great interface.

    1. Re:What did NeXT use? by PinkX · · Score: 1

      It had its propietary graphics system, not based on X11. It used Display Postscript as its backend rendering system, somewhat similar as how MacOS X uses the PDF engine and is OpenGL based.

      I have an old BYTE magazine dating back from 1988, in which they reviewed the NeXT as the 'Computer for the Nineties'. It has a very thoroughful technical review and on it you can surely appreciate how ahead of its time was the NeXT, when comparing it with other reviews and ads on the same magazine. I have scanned the article and uploaded it here (using Coral Cache to avoid getting my server hammered too hard) and you can check out the page detailing the use of the Display PostScript system right here.

      Best regards,

    2. Re:What did NeXT use? by generationxyu · · Score: 1
      --
      I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
    3. Re:What did NeXT use? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Technically I feel that NeWS (from Sun) was even better. On NeXT you used a totally different interface (NextStep and/or system calls) to create and manage windows and events, than the interface you used to draw (DPS/PostScript). On NeWS *everything* was done in PostScript. NeWS also allowed arbitrarily shaped windows (including disconnected pieces and holes) and the interpreter in the first version was a good deal faster than DPS. It also appeared that running large amounts of the window toolkit as PostScript was a good idea, NeXT hides this but the fact is that most of the window borders and handing of events to them was done by PostScript routines on the server, not by ObjC code.

      NeWS did suffer from not having any good communication between C and PostScript, making it easiest to write programs entirely in PostScript. Also Sun killed it by making it proprietary, while you could get the X11 source code for $100 and do anything you wanted with it.

  92. Sounds good, but what I want to know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were they wearing masks??

  93. Hmm by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    "... invite a new generation of developers to contribute, building on the long tradition of the X Window System..."

    Stability, Innefficent memory usage, bloated number of system calls, yeah... Perhaps some traditions should be left in the past...

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  94. Have they improved Xlib? -- No, why? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    For example
    even double buffering (never mind any fancy graphics manipulation)
    is still an extension for chrissake! In 2005!


    So what's exactly your problem with its being a discoverable extension?
    Maybe by 2015, it will be utterly obsolete, like many extensions have become now, and dropped by most then-modern X servers. As opposed to remaining as unused cruft that got stuck in the core protocol.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  95. Re:nVidia would never implement XAA nor EXA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what ?

    actually, nvidia binary drivers implement XRender in their own way.
    they also provide OpenGL. (1.5 or 2.0, depending on your card)

    Once glitz is considered stable, i expect them to drop XRender acceleration completly as it makes their driver more complicated.

    It would simplify their driver and would speed up XRender with such cards (using glitz to provide XRender via OpenGL)

  96. X.org at SCALE 4x by irabinovitch · · Score: 1

    The X.org team will be running a booth at SCALE 4x, the 2006 Southern California Linux Expo.

  97. X-Windows: ...The cutting edge of obsolescence. by SimHacker · · Score: 1

    "The comment was from a book published in 1994, based on mailing list contributions from 91 an 92."

    Incorrect: I originally wrote the X-Windows Disaster chapter specifically for the Unix-Haters handbook -- it wasn't ever posted to the unix-haters mailing list. It does quote a few messages from people like Jamie Zawinski and Steve Strassman, which they posted to the unix-haters mailing list, but I wrote most of the chapter later, specifically for the book, after porting multi player SimCity to X11.

    The expression "X-Windows: The first fully modular software disaster" comes from an anonymous flier that was distributed at one of the original X-Windows conferences. (No I didn't write it, but I certainly agree with the sentiment!)

    -Don

    Official Notice
    Post Immediately

    X: Dangerous Virus!

    First, a little history. The X window system escaped from Project Athena at MIT where it was being held in isolation. When notified, MIT stated piblicly that "MIT assumes no resonsibility...". This is a very disturbing statement. It then infiltrated Digital Equipment Corporation, where it has since corrupted the technical judgement of this organization.

    After sabotaging Digital Equipment Corporation, a sinister X consortium was created to find a way to use X as part of a plan to dominate and control interactive window systems. X windows is sometimes distributed by this secret consortium free of charge to unsuspecting victims. The destructive cost of X cannot even be guessed.

    X is truly obese - whether it's mutilating your hard disk or actively infesting your system, you can be sure it's up to no good. Innocent users need to be protected from this dangerous virus. Even as you read this, the X source distribution and the executable environment is being maintained on hundreds of computers, maybe even your own.

    Digital Equipment Corporation is already shipping machines that carry this dreaded infestation. It must be destroyed.

    This is what happens when software with good intentions goes bad. It victimizes innocent users by distorting their perception of what is and what is not good software. This malignant window system must be destroyed.

    Ultimately DEC and MIT must be held accountable for this heinous *software crime*, brought to justice, and made to pay for a *software cleanup*. Until DEC and MIT answer to these charges, they both should be assumed to be protecting dangerous software criminals.

    Don't be fooled! Just say no to X.

    X-Windows: ...A mistake carried out to perfection.
    X-Windows: ...Dissatisfaction guaranteed.
    X-Windows: ...Don't get frustrated without it.
    X-Windows: ...Even your dog won't like it.
    X-Windows: ...Flaky and built to stay that way.
    X-Windows: ...Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems.
    X-Windows: ...Flawed beyond belief.
    X-Windows: ...Form follows malfunction.
    X-Windows: ...Garbage at your fingertips.
    X-Windows: ...Ignorance is our most important resource.
    X-Windows: ...It could be worse, but it'll take time.
    X-Windows: ...It could happen to you.
    X-Windows: ...Japan's secret weapon.
    X-Windows: ...Let it get in *your* way.
    X-Windows: ...Live the nightmare.
    X-Windows: ...More than enough rope.
    X-Windows: ...Never had it, never will.
    X-Windows: ...No hardware is safe.
    X-Windows: ...Power tools for power fools.
    X-Windows: ...Putting new limits on productivity.
    X-Windows: ...Simplicity made complex.
    X-Windows: ...The cutting edge of obsolescence.
    X-Windows: ...The art of incompet

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  98. Things That Happen When You Say 'X Windows' by SimHacker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Things that happen when you say 'X Windows':

    I was digging through some old papers, and ran across a 15 year old "XNextEvent" newsletter, "The Official Newsletter of XUG, the X User's Group", Volume 1 Number 2, from June 1988. Here's an article that illustrates how far the usage of the term "X Windows" has evolved over the past 15 years. (Too bad The Window System Improperly Known as X Windows itself hasn't evolved.)

    Someone on slashdot asks, "Why is it still called X-Windows?". Predictably, the first reply says: "It isn't. It's called 'The X Window System.' Or simply 'X'. 'X Windows' is a misnomer."

    He didn't ask why it is "X-Windows". He asked why it's called "X-Windows". You're wrong that it isn't called "X-Windows". It is! It's just that it isn't "X-Windows". Being something is independent of being called something.

    The answer to the question 'Why is it still called X-Windows?' is: It's still called X-Windows in order to annoy the X-Windows Fanatics, who take it upon themselves to correct you every time you call it X-Windows. That's why it's called X-Windows.

    The following definitive guide to the consequences of saying "X Windows" is from the June 1988 "XNextEvent" newsletter, "The Official Newsletter of XUG, the X User's Group", Volume 1 Number 2:

    Things That Happen When You Say 'X Windows'

    THE OFFICAL NAMES
    The official names of the software described herein are:
    X
    X Window System
    X Version 11
    X Window System, Version 11
    X11

    Note that the phrases X.11, X-11, X Windows or any permutation thereof, are explicitly excluded from this list and should not be used to describe the X Window System (window system should be thought of as one word).

    The above should be enough to scare anyone into using the proper terminology, but sadly enough, it's not. Recently, certain people, lacking sufficient motivation to change their speech patterns, have fallen victim to various 'accidents', or 'misfortune'. I've compiled a short list of happenings, some of which I have witnessed, others which remain heresay. I'm not claiming any direct connection between their speech habits and the reported incidents, but you be the judge... And woe betide any who set the cursed phrase into print!

    You are forced to explain toolkit programming to X neophytes.

    Bob Schiefler says, "You should know better than that!"

    The Power Supply (and unknown boards) on your workstation mysteriously give up the ghost.

    Ditto for the controller board for the disk on your new Sun.

    Your hair falls out.

    xmh refuses to come up in a useful size, no matter what you fiddle.

    You inexplicitly lose both of your complete Ultrix Doc sets.

    R2 won't build.

    Bob Schiefler says "Type 'man X'".

    Your nifty new X screen saver just won't go away.

    The window you're working in loses input focus. Permanently.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  99. Solution in search of a problem by dbIII · · Score: 1
    At worst, it makes the config a little harder to read for anyone using an XML-unaware editor.
    But for what gain exactly?

    The syntax of the xorg.conf file is a lot simpler than the same thing in xml - it is just different and would most likely be confusing to anyone who has not spent sixty seconds taking a look at the incredibly easy to find docs (man xorg.conf). Anyone that needs to edit the file will most likely be looking at it from a text only screen at some point, so their favourite GUI xml editing tool is most likely unavailable and they may not know how to edit the things xml syntax with vi. If you have a GUI available other tools can be used anyway - like something that can parse the file, take user input for other desired settings and then spit out the configuration file.

    XML may be the flavour of the day but is not the solution to everything - look at gconf as an example of something in xml where you can't change individual settings without trepidation.

    Just look at the man page - it really isn't all that hard. Simplifying it may help but xml instead of the clear section starts and finishes is only going to complicate things.

    I say let Xorg supply the smarts for actually managing its own xorg.conf file.
    They don't have an agenda to change an old well documented configuration file format to something new. It's up to people who think the format could be a lot better to do that and produce something that is so much better that people will actually use it. If the driving force behind the new format is "dunno anything about it, didn't read the docs but I know xml" it isn't likely to get anywhere - but if the driving force is something else like a multi-purpose configuration tool it may well get adopted. A way to do it may well be like that used with sendmail - a config file is written in a simpler format and then converted into the sendmail configuration file. Users could edit your xml format config file and then have it convered into the plain text version. However, what exactly would that achieve and how less complicated would your config file be while addressing the same information? Recall that information is grouped into sections in the existing config file? Recall that a flat file can easily be modified by scripts while some xml file formats (I'm looking at you again gconf) cannot reliably be modified in this way unless that is thought of early in their life.

    Go on - prove me wrong. There may well be a compelling reason I am unaware of.