Kernel 2.6.31 To Speed Up Linux Desktop

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kernel 2.6.31 To Speed Up Linux Desktop

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 5, 2009 @05:24AM from the zoom-zoom dept.

Dan Jones writes "As the Linux community looks forward to another kernel release, the kernel hackers have been working on improving the memory management so that the X desktop responsiveness is doubled under high memory pressure. The result is an improved desktop experience. Benchmarks on memory-tight desktops show clock time and major faults reduced by 50 per cent, and pswpin numbers (memory reads from disk) are reduced to about one-third. Another improvement coming with 2.6.31 is kernel mode-setting support for ATI Radeon graphics cards, enabling faster user switching and a more seamless startup experience. Peripheral developments that will also improve the Linux desktop experience include support for the new USB 3.0 specification and a new Firewire stack. Even minor Linux releases have heaps of new features these days!"

57 of 360 comments (clear)

Obligatory XKCD by Aggrajag · 2009-09-05 05:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Linus reads XKCD? http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/supported_features.png
1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by abigor · 2009-09-05 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, it doesn't imply that at all. It's simply saying that Linux desktop users brag about irrelevent new "features", while basic things that everyone else takes for granted don't work properly.
2. Re:Obligatory XKCD by marcansoft · 2009-09-05 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Whichever way you put it, the fact that this "basic thing that everyone else takes for granted" doesn't work is is Adobe's fault, not the Linux community's fault. It would have made a lot more sense if the complaint were about some actual bug in Linux distros, not a problem with a historically shoddy proprietary plugin.
3. Re:Obligatory XKCD by ScytheBlade1 · 2009-09-05 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It may seem to imply that, but that isn't the goal. The goal of that comic is to show the difference between linux gurus who can rebuild their kernel six times a day and get it right every time, and "your average XP --> Ubuntu switcher."
  
  I'm a guy who took gentoo and rebuilt it in my home directory about fifty times with a set of scripts I developed, getting smaller and more specific every time until I could write it to a CF card and drop it in my embedded router that runs at 33MHz, and still run/startup faster than your average home router.
  
  I have a friend who uses Kubuntu (which really is a terrible KDE distro) who is definitely more adept in linux than your average switcher, but he doesn't spend his time memorizing internals or rebuilding kernels either.
  
  To me, I can see that comic and go "neat, that's a lot of CPUs" along with pegging Adobe for being a problem: "yeah, adobe sucks at cross platform." My friend goes "neat, that's a lot of CPUs" and "yeah linux is terrible in that area."
  Both pairs of statements are true. (And don't call me on the technicality that "linux is terrible in that area." Quit being hyperliteral; that's my entire point!)
4. Re:Obligatory XKCD by maxume · 2009-09-05 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As someone who uses Windows but has an open mind, I don't care who is at fault.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
5. Re:Obligatory XKCD by d3vi1 · 2009-09-05 06:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually the fault is split. 2D acceleration in Linux for most video drivers is shabby at best.
  On the other hand, Adobe doesn't really put that much engineering force into X11 optimizations. Adobe Flash on a non-accelerated Mac OS X (hackintosh using the included Vesa 3.0 driver) is still faster than on X11/Linux.
  I can't really blame Adobe for this. There are quite a lot of ways in which you can accelerate SOME drawing operations, but they are not available on all desktops. Clutter comes to mind right now, but it's not really the best option for QT/KDE users. It's hard to create an accelerated, desktop environment independent piece of software.
  
  --
  UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
6. Re:Obligatory XKCD by MPAB · 2009-09-05 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The comic didn't imply the kernel. Purists that wash their hands while saying "Linux is just a kernel, not my fault if it cannot (run x, recognize y or perform z)" are the target of this comic which tries to explain why linux (as a whole OS-and-software alternative) is not ready for the desktop.
7. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anarchduke · 2009-09-05 06:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hey, you want to know why linux doesn't have more desktop market penetration? Guess what, the average person would try linux and open their favorite youtube video and get pissed off at linux because it doesn't do full screen flash well.
  
  You think that in the same situation Microsoft wouldn't have somone calling Adobe to get the full screen flash video working properly? They understand that it is always the operating system's fault when something goes wrong, no matter what the truth is.
  
  Microsoft may be a giant corporate asshole, but they understand that people's perceptions no matter how misguided will impact the popularity of their product. Look at Vista, at release there were a lot of problems. Now at service pack 2, Vista is performing much better, but its brand name is still mud because of the problems. I personally think this was part of the plan. Windows 7 is coming out, and it is looking to be what Vista should have been.
  
  In the end, the "Windows" brand hasn't been damaged, the "Vista" brand was. And Windows 7 will hit the market sounding like some sort of savior for computers.
  
  Meanwhile, Linux advocates still want to know why the average person won't leave windows.
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
8. Re:Obligatory XKCD by marcansoft · 2009-09-05 06:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Linux isn't broken because Flash sucks, the "Ready For the Desktop" moniker is broken if people consider it to imply Flash support. Flash is a closed technology (the spec is only open if you're not writing a player), which puts any problems with Flash playback anywhere squarely into Adobe's hands. If being "ready for the desktop" implies "Adobe plays nice with you" and there is nothing you can do if they don't, something is really wrong. What is the Linux community supposed to do, hold Adobe at gunpoint until they fix Flash?
  I'm not saying Linux is otherwise ready for the desktop (and complaints about issues with Linux desktops themselves are perfectly okay), but Flash brokenness is a silly example.
9. Re:Obligatory XKCD by pjt33 · 2009-09-05 06:29 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  linux gurus who can rebuild their kernel six times a day
  How did they manage that before support for 4096 cores?
10. Re:Obligatory XKCD by reub2000 · 2009-09-05 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What's broken here is that a completely closed off format has become standard on the internet.
11. Re:Obligatory XKCD by jdoverholt · 2009-09-05 06:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Gentoo?
12. Re:Obligatory XKCD by centuren · 2009-09-05 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ScytheBlade1 is right:
  
  The comic didn't imply the kernel. Purists that wash their hands while saying "Linux is just a kernel, not my fault if it cannot (run x, recognize y or perform z)" are the target of this comic which tries to explain why linux (as a whole OS-and-software alternative) is not ready for the desktop.
  Indeed, the xkcd in question (a link to the page, not the image) doesn't hang on technical accuracy. It's absolutely a commentary on issues with the "Linux Desktop", with developers putting a relatively rare server concern such as support for thousands of CPUs ahead of something that pretty much every PC user expects to have (the ability to watch Hulu smoothly).
  To nit-pick, however, the comic does seem to imply the kernel. In the alt-text you find:
  
  "I hear many of you finally have smooth Flash support, but me and my Intel card are still waiting on a kernel patch somewhere in the pipeline before we can watch Jon Stewart smoothly."
  The author is waiting on a Linux kernel patch to fix the Flash issues he has with his Intel card.
  
  That's one of the more annoying XKCDs as far as I'm concerned. It seems to imply that the full-screen Flash video woes are somehow the kernel's fault. I used to like XKCD, but it seems to be getting dumber and dumber each day.
  When Markansoft says the above, it's clear that he prizes technical accuracy in the comic enough to forgo appreciation of the general point of humour. However, is the comic's implication really wrong? I don't know much about how Flash works with hardware, or if it requires any specific support for a chipset. The author seems pretty sure he needs a patch for his hardware set up before he can get the same quality of Flash performance already enjoyed by other Linux users. That certainly doesn't remove Adobe and their cross-platform unfriendliness from the situation, but Linux distros are made from work arounds, and the comic's target is the priorities of developers, not Adobe's open source policies.
13. Re:Obligatory XKCD by MPAB · 2009-09-05 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The same way mp3 became a standard and "linux" users must install codecs "at their own risk".
  The same way linux-verboten WinModems became a standard that faded only when they couldn't keep up with ADSL.
  The same way Realtek and Broadcom WiFi cards have become a standard in most notebooks (and some desktops) and they still perform very poorly under "linux".
  The same way NVidia and ATI have become the video adapter standards and none has yet got full support (not even mentioning double screens) under Linux.
  I'm not blaming linux for any of this, but I do blame those that cry over the fact the rest of the world has accepted and can get along with those de facto "standards".
  With the right kexts and a couple of clicks, my Leopard hackintosh install gets a much better grab of my hardware than both my Ubuntu and Debian installs, over which I'm endlessly trying new drivers and recompiling the kernel.
14. Re:Obligatory XKCD by negRo_slim · 2009-09-05 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The only folks who use Flash fullscreen are people watching online porn. :)
  
  Well, and YouTube,
  and Hulu.
  
  --
  On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
15. Re:Obligatory XKCD by causality · 2009-09-05 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wish there were a Greasemonkey script for Slashdot that would remove from visibility any and all posts containing "XKCD". That way my view of the discussion would look like no such posts existed. While I'd love to endlessly debate the intended message of a guy who draws stick figure comics, it really doesn't have much to do with the latest improvements to the Linux kernel other than mentioning the words. That, and I just don't find XKCD to be endlessly interesting the way a lot of folks here do. It doesn't help that most of the ones mentioned here are quite stereotypical (like the whole "geeks care about things that average users don't, whodathunkit?!" theme). Even if I did find XKCD to be endlessly interesting, I wouldn't bring it up at every possible opportunity. Now go ahead and flame me because I don't think your trendy (around here, anyway) comic is all that clever.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
16. Re:Obligatory XKCD by marcansoft · 2009-09-05 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  MP3 is an open format, just a patented one. Big difference. There are tons of MP3 implementations and they can talk to each other. And Fluendo makes a free-as-in-beer fully legal MP3 codec for Linux.
  Some WinModems had drivers for Linux that worked decently. It varied from vendor to vendor. And you could always buy a real modem.
  As far as I know, WiFi support for most chipsets is quite decent on Linux these days. But that's irrelevant, because you have a choice - you can buy another vendor's card, and they all interoperate with the same open WiFi specification. This is very different from the Flash issue.
  NVidia has relatively great drivers for Linux, including multiple screens. I'm using xinerama right now and all I had to do was plug the second monitor in and open nvidia-settings to tell it how the monitors should be arranged. It was about the same, if not easier, than doing the same thing under Windows. And at least you get to pick between NVidia, Intel, or ATI
  Users have a choice with every one of those 4 examples. They do not have a choice with Flash, as there is only one vendor with a half-decent implementation and they block any potential competitors from using their specification.
17. Re:Obligatory XKCD by TheSunborn · 2009-09-05 07:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not anymore. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash)
  In May 2008, Adobe launched the Open Screen Project (Adobe link), which made the SWF specification available without restrictions. Previously, developers couldn't use the specification for making SWF-compatible players, but only for making SWF-exporting authoring software. The specification remains incomplete, however, as it does not include any details regarding RTMP or Sorenson Spark,[27] both of which are widely used to distribute video through Flash.
  So the only missing piece is the video encoding and that can be handled by mplayer already.
18. Re:Obligatory XKCD by mysidia · 2009-09-05 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is no excuse. The Open Source community has brought us Samba for goodness sake.
  Reverse-engineering and making an open implementation of a simple web plugin should be harder than reverse-engineering and implementing Windows domain, RPC named pipes, and file sharing protocols? :)
  Not to mention the fact that Adobe has made SWF, FLV, and RMTP open specifications.
19. Re:Obligatory XKCD by jmorris42 · 2009-09-05 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > As someone who uses Windows but has an open mind, I don't care who is at fault.
  Fair enough on one level but totally unfair on the one that matters here. If the criticism of the Linux community is they concentrate their effort on things that mortals care little for this one doesn't work since the performance of Flash Player is entirely out of their hands.
  Flash sucks everywhere, just to varying degrees depending on platform. Go watch the fun in the netbook space as the Intel Atom is being unfairly blamed by clueless pundits for the inability of netbooks with the newer 1280x720 and 1388x768 displays to play full screen Flash video (on Windows XP btw.). We nerds on slashdot know better of course, the problem is Adobe being mindless idiots who can't figure out how to properly use a scaled video surface.
  I'd like some green group to calculate how many YouTube videos have been played and how many GigaWatt Hours of electricity have been wasted on software colorspace conversion and scaling because Adobe can't figure out how to use well documented and commonly available features on every video card made in the last fifteen years.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
20. Re:Obligatory XKCD by marcansoft · 2009-09-05 07:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  FLV is a flash video format. Mplayer already plays FLVs just fine. This has little to do with flash video sites, which use SWF to create their own players for FLV content (and often the FLV location is obfuscated and keyed, so you need to interpret the SWF to get to it). It is impossible to get YouTube to work with only an FLV player. Crude hacks like using Adobe's plugin to download the video to /tmp and then playing it with mplayer aren't really viable for end-users.
  The SWF format was completely closed until May 1, 2008, and even now it's still missing bits and pieces. Gnash devs have had less than a year and a half to work with a real specification, so it's no surprise that they're still quite a ways behind the official Adobe Flash.
21. Re:Obligatory XKCD by marcansoft · 2009-09-05 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Flash is by no means "simple". There are a bunch of different speficiations and sub-specifications to be implemented (ActionScript, FLV, RTMP, ...).
22. Re:Obligatory XKCD by MostAwesomeDude · 2009-09-05 08:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  [citations needed]
  EXA is the backend acceleration we use right now in X. It works.
  Full EXA is provided for radeon, nouveau, and intel, the Big Three. A lot of esoteric chips are supported too. They might not be super-fast, but they're still fast enough to do nearly anything. (Getting that vaunted 1m glyphs/sec is tough though.)
  Flash is a piece of shit. I most certainly can and will blame Adobe for not putting more than one person on the Linux Flash team, and I can point to the incomplete, buggy, largely hacked-up Gnash as an example of a software rasterizer that moves much faster than Flash despite also being lame.
  Don't even get me started on Flash Video.
  
  --
  ~ C.
23. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Hurricane78 · 2009-09-05 08:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, with SVG and the video tag, that is about to change! Big time!
  I'm a professional, and man, watch those demos in at least Firefox 3.5 (or something comparable): http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/
  The ability to integrate Flash-like FX, Video and Audio SEAMLESSLY with (X)HTML and CSS (and every other supported XML language, like MathML), is just beyond words... It's what I'm waiting for, for at least a decade! And the performance of both environments gets closer and closer to being equal.
  With that, soon nobody needs or even wants Flash anymore.
  I'll just use those features, and frankly, I can stand "losing" even 50% of the users for it. Those are the dumbest part of the population anyway. You only have problems with those. They can go to AOL or whatever. I have enough clients. :)
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
24. Re:Obligatory XKCD by zdzichu · 2009-09-05 08:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Fedora developer read it for sure:
  * Fri Aug 07 2009 Kristian HÃgsberg - 2.8.0-4 - Add dri2-page-flip.patch to enable full screen pageflipping. Fixes XKCD #619.
  xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.8.0-4.fc12
  
  --
  :wq
25. Re:Obligatory XKCD by The+MAZZTer · 2009-09-05 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As someone who uses Windows who sees exactly the same poor performance in Flash, I KNOW who's at fault.
26. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Blakey+Rat · 2009-09-05 12:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As an ex-Mac user, and a video game fan, the rule is that the Mac version of the number 1 game usually comes out about 3 months after everybody else has already gotten sick of playing it to death.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
27. Re:Obligatory XKCD by hairyfeet · 2009-09-05 13:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No shit. Trying to sell Linux at retail is a fricking nightmare from hell. Which printers on sale at Walmart this week work in Linux? Will these wireless cards at Best Buy work out of the box? Damned if I know, and the poor bastard behind the counter at Staples sure as hell ain't gonna know either. Which is why i have said time and time again there needs to be a stable ABI and a "Tux the penguin" certification process. That way retailers like me can just go "look for the fat penguin" and know that the items will "just work".
  So while I congratulate the kernel guys for these new tweaks, until any of my customers can walk into Walmart and buy hardware without it being a minefield I don't really see this helping Linux adoption much. The Windows customers can look for the "works with Windows x" Winflag, the Apple customers look for the Apple logo, the Linux customers are just SOL unless they study like it was a fricking test just to buy some hardware at Staples. Until that changes getting better memory response isn't really gonna help much IMHO. It is like those OSes that fit on a single floppy. Good for a little "how did they do that" entertainment but not really usable for the vast majority.
  I personally hope for the day I see just as many Linux laptops as Windows ones in Walmart, and little fat Tux logos on nearly every piece of hardware, but with the zealotry of RMS and the "source code or nothing!" crowd I won't hold my breath. Damned shame, as the newer Linux distros are really nice, with lots of cool features, but trying to find hardware that works is just too big of a PITA to allow me to sell them at retail.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
28. Re:Obligatory XKCD by maxume · 2009-09-05 14:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You are conflating things. I am not (hypothetically here) raging at the Linux community to fix flash, I am simply not experimenting with Linux because I care about flash working reasonably well, and apparently, it doesn't. The underlying reason isn't particularly relevant if I care about having flash.
  So again, the point isn't that I will capriciously blame anyone and everyone for anything, the point is that if I see a problem that prevents me from doing something I want to do day-to-day, I'm not even going to try. That the community bears the brunt of Adobe's lack of interest is unfortunate, but there you go.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
29. Re:Obligatory XKCD by walshy007 · 2009-09-05 17:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Which is why i have said time and time again there needs to be a stable ABI and a "Tux the penguin" certification process.
  Certification process fair enough, but a stable ABI is not needed for that, any piece of hardware that has a recognized in kernel tree driver driver should simply be plugged in and see if it works, if it does without any real issues, certification can be done
  Trusting random companies with ring 0 privileged code your machine is a big leap of faith when you can't see the code, almost all of the bsod's you see these days on windows aren't microsoft's fault at all, but the fault of shitty drivers by third party companies. Some of us like the quality ensured by having in kernel frequently audited drivers
  But still, allowing binary blobs is not needed for certification that *blah* works on linux. Linux does have the largest in-built hardware support of any modern os.
30. Re:Obligatory XKCD by abigor · 2009-09-05 17:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You're sure about that?
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126369
  * Fri Aug 07 2009 Kristian HÃgsberg - 2.8.0-4
  - Add dri2-page-flip.patch to enable full screen pageflipping.
  Fixes XKCD #619.
31. Re:Obligatory XKCD by vivaelamor · 2009-09-05 23:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't think reverse engineering a network protocol is anywhere close to as hard as reverse engineering something like flash.
Re:Even minor releases? by armanox · 2009-09-05 05:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't have the link handy, but, Linus has said before that a kernel 2.8 or 3.0 doesn't matter to him.

--
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Catering to wide audience by ultrabot · 2009-09-05 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

From TFA:
The result is an improved desktop experience; benchmarks on memory tight desktops show clock time and major faults reduced by 50 per cent, and pswpin numbers (memory reads from disk) are reduced to about one-third. That means X desktop responsiveness is doubled under high memory pressure.
Furthermore, memory flushing benchmarks in a file server shows the number of major faults going from 50 to 3 during 10 per cent cache hot reads.
And on next paragraph...
Linux foundner Linus Torvalds, first developed the operating system for his desktop and it rose to promince as a commodity Unix server.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Been using .31, and I'm a fan. by sherl0k · 2009-09-05 05:36 · Score: 3, Informative

I can honestly say that the system does feel a lot snappier, more responsive, and just overall a much more pleasant user experience. Everything's just a lot smoother. The kernel team is doing a pretty awesome job of speeding things up. Kudos.
1. Re:Been using .31, and I'm a fan. by HangingChad · 2009-09-05 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The kernel team is doing a pretty awesome job of speeding things up. Kudos.
  Seconded. It also says good things about the state of the kernel and development team that they can focus on optimization and the user experience. It wasn't that long ago the focus was on getting wireless to work. We've come such a long way. Very impressive. Well done.
  
  --
  That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
2. Re:Been using .31, and I'm a fan. by Rebar · 2009-09-05 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The Break-In process of the new Linux kernel takes time. There is a significant change in Video Performance as the kernel break in. There is still a perception that Linux kernels have a short break in time or worse yet, don't require break in. Some hackers used a second computer to break in the Linux kernel, and transfer the image to their primary computer. This method will not appreciably reduce the break in time required for the kernel. Linux kernel Break-In must be done in the position where you plan to use it.
  The System Performance Stages of the kernel are as follows:
  * First Stage of Break-In = The system will feel very open, clear and with good detail resolution and dynamics. The greens and lower reds will have elevated intensity levels. The lower output of the blue and green information is due to reduced bandwidth performance at this Stage. In some systems, especially with aluminum or titanium heatsinks, the greens and blues may appear edgy or even fatiguing. The visual stage will appear OK with some lack of Focus. It will take from 5 to 15 hours of break-in for the kernel to reach the Second Stage of Break-In.
  * Second Stage of Break-In = The blues and greens will appear less elevated and up front as the monitor intensity level increases. This is followed by the reds starting fill in. The lack of Focus may become more noticeable and the visual stage will start to widen and have more depth. It will take an additional 15 to 35 hours to reach the Third Stage of Break-In.
  * Third Stage of Break-In = The system response time will completely flatten out. The presentation will become very clean and less up front. The lack of Focus is disappearing and the imaging will improve as will the low level detail resolution. The Green comes in and it is very tight and you will see lower Red frequencies than your other kernel provided. In effect the visual signature of the kernel will seem to disappear and the X-window presentation will be very real and non-fatiguing. It will take an additional 30 to 50 hours to reach the Final Stage of Kernel Performance.
  * Fourth and Final Stage of Kernel Performance = The Visual Stage will be wider than your monitor with excellent depth, height and precise localization of individual icons on the desktop. The hue of the icons will be very accurate over the entire desktop. Symbolic links have excellent referencing ability. The metallic sound of your hard drive is very lifelike. Rhythm, Pace and Dynamics are effortless. Many users find they are now viewing the X-window system at lower Light Levels due to the effortless presentation. You will start to see subtle visual cues like the programmer turning his head while he is programming. You will find you are viewing the Window Manager and forgetting about evaluating your system.
Benchmarks by pm_rat_poison · 2009-09-05 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Phoronix has published benchmarks of an ubuntu system with kernel 2.6.31-rc5
We just need an alternative to X by bogaboga · 2009-09-05 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just like folks at Apple realized with their OS X, we in the Linux world, need an alternative to X. I heard that Google Chrome OS will get rid of it entirely. I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
1. Re:We just need an alternative to X by eyepeepackets · 2009-09-05 05:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  X works really good for what it's designed for and I'd hate to have to live without it. That said, what I also would like is a custom version for gaming which turns down or off features not needed for gaming. Wouldn't it be nice if users could build a custom X as easy as custom kernels?
  
  --
  Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
2. Re:We just need an alternative to X by the+linux+geek · 2009-09-05 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I would love to see somebody tell me what's wrong with X without referencing the UNIX Haters Handbook or anything else more than ten years old. I've been using it for a LONG time, in various proprietary and open-source incarnations, and it's come a long way. Xorg generally even works without an xorg.conf these days, and no other windowing system comes close to X's networking/remote-access features.
3. Re:We just need an alternative to X by impaledsunset · 2009-09-05 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I disagree. Do you have any reason why you want to get rid of X?
  X's code base is ugly at places, and writing pure-X11 applications isn't the most fun thing in the world, but I can't think of (m)any shortcomings that lead to any trouble in real world usage that can't be fixed. Also, X has to offer a lot of things that any new thing wouldn't have. You might not use many of the features you get for free with X, but some of us do. X's architecture can be seen as a shortcoming, but it's also an advantage in many situation. Remote X for example is a great thing.
  The biggest problem is all the applications that are currently written for X. You can't rewrite everything, and it is not even worth it. Really. X is working fine, and it's getting better. The same goes for the drivers, and everything that's already in.
  And if Google Chrome OS's windowing system doesn't support the X protocol, I can assure you I won't be using it.
4. Re:We just need an alternative to X by ultrabot · 2009-09-05 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just like folks at Apple realized with their OS X, we in the Linux world, need an alternative to X. I heard that Google Chrome OS will get rid of it entirely. I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
  Nouveau guys seem to disagree:
  http://icps.u-strasbg.fr/~marchesin/nvdri/fosdem1.pdf
  
  --
  Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
5. Re:We just need an alternative to X by QuoteMstr · 2009-09-05 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
  Troll. But I'll bite.
  X11 is a whipping boy for anyone who's ever had a complaint about a Unix GUI. No matter whether it's a badly-designed application, an unstable driver, or poor kernel scheduling, or a deranged toolkit drag-and-drop model, people always fault X11. And no matter what the root cause of the problem, the solution is always to throw out the X protocol and design something else. People like you fail to account for the possibility that there's actually very little wrong with X, and that it can certainly be the basis for a modern, functional GUI.
  There was a very interesting comment on Slashdot a few years ago by Mike Paquette (who wrote Apple's Quartz) explaining why Apple didn't use X11 for OS X. The funny thing, in retrospect, is that every single feature mentioned in Paquette's post has now been implemented for X11, and that's with volunteer work. If Apple had invested resources into making this happen for X instead of reinventing the wheel, everyone would have been better off. Yet despite these additional features, we still retain full network transparency along with full compatibility stretching back to the 80s.
  Don't confuse "newer" and "better". X11's architecture is quite good, and is among one of the better designs for a windowing system ever created. It's clean, extensible, fast, and network-transparent. It defines mechanism, not policy, and does its job extremely well. That it's been extended to support all kinds of modern features is a testament to the strength of its original design.
  If it weren't for the soul-crushing stupidity, it'd be hilarious that people claim X is slow. X ran quickly on computers with 1/000 the performance of even a modest desktop system today, but it's slow on these modern computers? That makes no sense. People claim that X's network transparency puts it at a performance disadvantage, but neglect that Unix Sockets, used for local communication, are among the faster IPC mechanisms in existence. Criticism of X as a platform is baseless.
6. Re:We just need an alternative to X by jmorris42 · 2009-09-05 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
  No, you are just a fool speaking of things he knows nothing of. You should go into politics.
  I'll give 10-1 odds what you are actually wanting to replace is GNOME, KDE, Qt or Gtk and you haven't a fracking clue what part X actually plays in your desktop experience. You ain't the first newbie blathering on about replacing X and you won't be the last. Some have actually attempted to do it... I didn't follow closely but they never made it past talking and designing... In the end, once you actually study things and start planning you realize that whatever you wanted to do can be done on X and you get the device support for free instead of spending man decades reinventing a whole hell of a lot of wheels.
  > Just like folks at Apple realized with their OS X, we in the Linux world, need an alternative to X.
  See? Total lack of clue. What happened with OS X is with Steve's return Apple got NextStep as their long sought replacement for OS 9. OS X 10.0 is pretty much NextStep with an OS 9 emulator app tossed in. NextStep has always been Display Postscript based so no suprise there... and no rejection of X. Then they tossed in an rootless X server so it could run traditional *NIX apps.
  > I heard that Google Chrome OS will get rid of it entirely.
  Only is Google is a bunch of mindless idiots. Hint: Google isn't a bunch of mindless idiots, they understand what X provides. Remember, X provides mechanism, not policy. That means you can implement pretty much any UI atop it. Witness WINE implementing Win32 and in many cases having it run faster atop X than GDI.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
7. Re:We just need an alternative to X by centuren · 2009-09-05 07:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  X works really good for what it's designed for and I'd hate to have to live without it. That said, what I also would like is a custom version for gaming which turns down or off features not needed for gaming. Wouldn't it be nice if users could build a custom X as easy as custom kernels?
  I agree that X works well for it's designed purpose, and that said I agree that we have further need as we move beyond what it was designed to do (and into the issues we run into with a modern desktop, such as gaming).
  I find I struggle a bit with X on each new install (I like to switch around and use different Linux distros as the mood to tinker comes and goes). After working in an OSX-based development shop with Logitech MX1000s at each desk, I became spoiled on the 12 buttons (10 if you don't count the wheel's scroll up and scroll down), especially combined with Expose. The same features are available in an X desktop environment using Compiz Fusion, and as is usually the case, the Linux equivalent of Expose can be configured to do a whole lot more.
  The first issue with X is getting my mouse configured. I can get all mouse buttons to work, but I usually find myself searching and coming to the xbindkeys method after making minor changes to X's config file. I never remember just what I did to get it working the last time, and have to play around for a while to first figure out what the buttons are, and have to resort to assigning key bindings to them (which I also do for some of them in OSX, as something like ctrl-alt-right and ctrl-alt-left get the job done for switching desktops since I already have that shortcut in place).
  There are desktop-environment specific issues (Compiz refusing to take a click to toggle all windows, for example, instead required the button be held down), but the main annoyance was the bindings not being captured by video games (WoW was the game at the time). WoW ran great on my Linux system, but to use my mouse properly (which was important for in-game macros), I had to exit X, swap the .xinitrc files, and start up my "WoW-configured" X, which launched the game and allowed me to use my mouse bindings without anything else competing for them. I didn't get around to including ventrillo into that setup.
  Now these are two different things:
  1) It's been a major pain to set up my fancy-pants mouse to be fully recognised in X.
  2) Once set up, there are conflicts between the non-X desktop environments that use the bindings and any applications launched.
  The first could be made easier, but as the mouse is supported by evidence of me getting it working, repeating the process each time is no one's fault but my own. If it's a serious enough complaint I should even write a tool to do the configuration. I suspect that it would be useful to some, but not all, due to the main issue seen in #2.
  There seems to be structural functionality lacking in X that applications can use to share resources, such as input devices. I don't expect X to have been designed expecting a KDE / Compiz Fusion environment to compete with WoW running from Wine, and the last thing I'd like to see is X development push entirely in that direction, since obviously we still need it's server/network features without bloating it with features that won't be used in most cases where those are needed. Still, I'd like the option for universal recognition of mouse buttons beyond the 3+scroll model in all applications that use X, with rules about which applications one wants to take the input. Perhaps that's a window manager issue, but with so many window managers out there, it seems like there should be a solid framework written into X that provides a standard way for the different desktop environments to handle such things.
8. Re:We just need an alternative to X by tmmagee · 2009-09-05 08:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I for one am still waiting patiently for Berlin (now called Fresco) to replace X. It should be amazing when it is finally finished!
9. Re:We just need an alternative to X by dbIII · 2009-09-05 13:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You just don't know what X can do. As an example, I have a router that can only be configured from the office (as it should). This morning one of the links was down. I logged into my work machine from home, opened a web browser there which appeared on my home computer screen, went to the page for the router configuration and fixed it with a few clicks. Now while VNC or remote desktop could do that it is slower and harder to use than just having the application you want appear on the screen you want as if it was running on the local machine. That's just the window you want and not an entire desktop full of what is really irrelevant crap to what you want now. That is what X gives you above everything else - and yes, I do use X on to of MS Windows as well on occasion.
  Now if you look at the aspects of it to just put pixels on the screen from things running locally it performs just as well as other display methods (eg. nvidia drivers on X vs nvidia drivers on XP - same performance). If you can think of real examples instead of dredging up the stuff from the people that were complaining about how they didn't need this slow GUI thing when text was fast from twenty years ago then please share. If the stuff running on top (eg. gnome) is slow then you ditch that for something that isn't.
ATI mode setting, well, sort of... by eddy · 2009-09-05 05:53 · Score: 4, Informative

From the kernelnewbies article:

This version adds Kernel Mode Setting (KMS) support for ATI Radeon. Hardware supported is R1XX,R2XX,R3XX,R4XX,R5XX (radeon up to X1950). Works is underway to provide support for R6XX, R7XX and newer hardware (radeon from HD2XXX to HD4XXX).

With the HD5850 and HD5870 weeks away (don't buy a new card till they're out, you'll hate yourself!), this means you have to be three GENERATIONS behind the curve for this yet unreleased kernel feature to be of use.

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.
1. Re:ATI mode setting, well, sort of... by QuoteMstr · 2009-09-05 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you need a bleeding-edge card, you're gaming, and to be frank, Linux is not the best environment for gaming. If, on the other hand, you're interested in solid 2D work with decent acceleration, a solid older card is just the thing. I just picked up a dirt-cheap R400-based card myself. (I'd have stuck with my trusty Matrox G450, but the driver will probably never support modern multihead with xrandr 1.3.)
Re:*Another* FireWire stack? by TJamieson · 2009-09-05 06:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Replying to myself... whee!

It is not a new FireWire stack, rather the "second" stack that has been experimental for a few years is no longer marked experimental. However, the maintainer still says to use the old stack for many applications.

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
Re:Funny how Windows and Linux go opposites by Randle_Revar · 2009-09-05 06:07 · Score: 2, Informative

The drivers *are* in userland (well there, is enough in the kernel to display basic images and text). KMS means the kernel can change video modes, which allows early boot splash screens with no "blink" transitions when X takes over and allows "bluescreens", that is, the kernel can print error messages to the screen even if X locks up.

--
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Re:Even minor releases? by Archaemic · 2009-09-05 06:19 · Score: 5, Informative

We won't: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/7/15/2497614
It's not all doom and gloom for the penguin by wonkavader · 2009-09-05 06:51 · Score: 4, Funny

From the article:
The advent of Windows 7 in October may drive Linux's desktop market share down even futher.
It's not all doom and gloom for the penguin, however...
Thank goodness. I was so worried and depressed.
Re:Lets do to X what ALSA did for sound. by DarkOx · 2009-09-05 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Totally wrong, you must be new here.
OSS existed both in free and non-free forms. The non-free implementation was missing some featured and supported few cards. OSS was very limited where mixing of multiple audio sources was concerned.
So if you wanted sound effects while you listening to music OSS probably was not enough for you. These is where the sound daemons came into play. They acted as a single OSS client and did all the mixing operations for other software to connect with.
ALSA - provided an architecture to handle modern multi channel boards and do mixing. It also improved the abstraction of particular drivers; so it was easier to add support for new cards. The libraries make it much easier to write clients for as well.
OSS emulation is popular because there is still a great deal of OSS client software around and hey you get most of the ALSA benifents of multi-client support and functional drivers for just about every card under the sun even while using OSS emulation so there is no good reason no to use.
Sound is a solved problem if you are still having problem with sound on your linux desktop then you must:
1.You have some very exotic hardware or needs. There are still some gaps in the super low latency realm for people trying to do sound engineering and such.
3.You are using really and I mean really cheap hardware that is missing important features and was doing way to much in software on that other platform. Drop $20 and get a new audio card, or get a motherboard with a chip set form a company whose name you can at least pronounce, if you want to use onboard audio.
3.You are using a really old distribution
4.You are using a really poor distribution
5.You failed to read the documentation and have badly mis-configured your system.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Who cares? by centuren · 2009-09-05 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why does this matter, really? Linux is a server OS, why are they spending any time on useless trivia? Compare the number of working linux boxes used for servers versus desktops, and ask the same question again.
I get the same question each time I ask the question: it matters because I don't manage servers anymore, and the news about improvements to the "Linux Desktop" is much more relevant to me. Not only because I like to play around with Linux and any related innovations, but also because I believe that 1) Windows won't always be as easy to acquire without cost as it has been for as long as I can remember, 2) I (or a friend/family member) won't always have money to spend on a Mac, and 3) with those conditions on the table, there will be many situations where suddenly a Linux desktop system is the best option. That is, having to spend $100 on an OS places value on a Linux desktop regardless of how much they are outnumbered by Linux servers, especially when money is tight.
Of course, I'm intentionally thinking ahead in reaction to your question. My initial response is the most accurate. Improvements on the Linux desktop are just vastly more relevant and interesting to me than server issues. That might shift if I move back into a position where I'm managing servers, but probably not very much (I think there's more of a status quo).

"A lot" is two words. You wouldn't say "alittle", would you?
I applaud the effort to stamp out the incorrect use of "alot" in place of "a lot", but I'll add my unsolicited advice that it would read better as: "A lot is two words. You wouldn't say "agoup", would you?. Agroup, aton, abunch all match it up with "lot" as a noun, rather than just the modern adopted usage as a synonym to "many".
Re:That really seems to be the philosophy around h by JWSmythe · 2009-09-05 14:02 · Score: 2, Informative

On any decent machine (2Ghz+ with 1Gb+ RAM), I haven't had any problem with full screen flash. I did a while back, when it was buggier. Most of my machines have been 64 bit (Slamd64). For a while I ran the 32 bit Firefox just to have the Flash player work, but that's been resolved for a while with no complaints.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.