Slashdot Mirror


X.Org Server 1.16 Brings XWayland, GLAMOR, Systemd Integration

An anonymous reader writes The much anticipated Xorg Server 1.16 release is now available. The X.Org "Marionberry Pie" release features XWayland integration, GLAMOR support, systemd support, and many other features. XWayland support allows for legacy X11 support in Wayland environments via GL acceleration, GLAMOR provides generic 2D acceleration, non-PCI GPU device improvements, and countless other changes. The systemd integration finally allows the X server to run without root privileges, something in the works for a very long time. The non-PCI device improvements mean System-on-a-Chip graphics will work more smoothly, auto-enumerating just like PCI graphics devices do. As covered previously, GLAMOR (the pure OpenGL acceleration backend) has seen quite a bit of improvement, and now works with Xephyr and XWayland.

15 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there will be no usable X, at least not from X.org, outside of poetterix.

  2. Systemd? Not on my system... by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really hope it is not a requirement and will never be on for X.org. Otherwise, I will end up having to make my Linux-servers X-less and probably use Windows as terminal. After all, with systemd, windows-like levels of intransparency, insecurity, complexity and developer arrogance have already been reached. One system with that is quite enough, I do not need to deal with that crap on Linux as well.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Systemd vs init: It's a Swiss Army knife vs a chef's knife. A shiny abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed, vs a simple tool that does one thing very very well.

    2. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Systemd definitely solves a problem that exists. Unfortunately, it solves it in the same way that a nuclear warhead solves the problem of rat infestation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The juxtaposition of your post and sig "Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it." has me ROFLing. Systemd is, indeed, just like the spam skit - it's in EVERYTHING, and everybody gets stuck with it, even though nobody wants it. In the same way that spam isn't really FOOD, it's just on your plate, systemd isn't UNIX, it's just on your system.

    4. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've got that exactly backwards. The systemd lovers are more like the people who say "I don't care WHAT the Mormons believe, as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior".

    5. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Emacs never tried to crush vi. Systemd is trying to crowd out all other init-systems and to remove choice from the user. That is a bit different.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like this analogy! The reason I use Linux is that I like excellent, simple and clear tools which are decidedly "user serviceable parts inside". I do mess with the init-system in occasion, and some of my hacks have been reliable with the traditional init for more than a decade now. The systemd answer to that is "submit a patch", in C no less and if they do not like it (which is standard), have it rejected. How that can be viewed as an improvement is beyond me.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main beef I have with it is the "embrace-and-extend" cancer-like model that is used to push it on people by. If it were just a cultured, friendly alternative, but anybody not wanting to use it could easily be without it, I would have no problem with it at all. Instead it is a clear, uncultivated power-grab in the Linux-sphere and that is not good at all.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Systemd? Not on my system... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would have to disagree with the analogy of embrace and extend as systemd is open source whereas MS products were not. And you can use alternatives but it may be more work to maintain them.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  3. What about non-Linux users? by armanox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, to me it sounds like they are moving to being Linux only. As someone who supports multiple UNIX flavors (AIX, Solaris, HP UX, IRIX, and FreeBSD), all of which are running some form of X (and several of them running X.Org), I am displeased with the trend towards all of the primarily Linux dependencies for a lot of software - GNOME 3, Wayland, and now features of X11.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  4. So... by warrax_666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what particular one thing does SysV init do well in your opinion? I honestly can't think of a single thing. It's crappy at managing services, it's crappy at running shell scripts (as witness by the non-standardness of init.d scripts), it's shit at managing running services with interdependencies (inittab), it's shit at dynamically reconfiguring systems (e.g. network reconfiguration for Wifi.), etc. etc.

    There's a reason alternatives were created, y'know.

    --
    HAND.
  5. Re:So... by ustolemyname · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Totally agree. When I read his analogy it initially made sense to me, but only because I implicitly switched the order of Systemd and SysV init because that makes sense. "abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed" perfectly describes the hell that was init scripts.

  6. Re:So... by allquixotic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think SysVinit is particularly good at anything, especially considering it's SysV's complete lack of functionality that caused the emergence of 9 different ways to do network config (Debian way, RHEL way, Gentoo way, and many others); 9 different ways to do logging (syslog, rsyslog, syslog-ng, etc.); and so on with starting daemons, yada yada.

    That said, I'm really somewhat disappointed that, as powerful of a unifying force within the Linux distro world Poettering's contributions have been, they completely neglect non-Linux FOSS operating systems. I've been a RHEL/Debian hand for years and years, but recently I've started falling in love with SmartOS, which is based on Illumos/OpenIndiana/OpenSolaris. It actually has a REALLY good built-in init system called SMF, which, like all init systems, sucks at some things but is really really nifty at others. One thing I can say for certain about SMF is it kicks SysVinit's ass from one side of the world to the other. It's always disappointing when a project team for something other than systemd, which previously compiled fine on SmartOS, decides to add a hard dependency on Systemd. It basically guarantees that your project will be forked for all the people out there who aren't using Systemd.

    Looks like Xorg doesn't strictly require systemd, which is the CORRECT way to integrate Systemd into a project: make it an OPTIONAL dependency. I have absolutely no qualms with a project ADDING support for Systemd while maintaining support for non-Systemd systems, such as non-Linux OSes. I have a problem when something I need on SmartOS is basically hard-locked to the Linux kernel by indirection to hard-depending on Systemd.

  7. Re:So... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's crappy at managing services,

    init doesn't manage services. Services are either managed by inetd or by themselves. init only has to start the services.

    it's crappy at running shell scripts (as witness by the non-standardness of init.d scripts),

    That's proof of how good it is at running shell scripts. It just runs the script.

    it's shit at managing running services with interdependencies (inittab)

    Init doesn't need to be good at that. You can use a tool to create your runlevels which can figure it out. The only problem I see is the lack of parallelism. I suspect that this could have been fixed without replacing init.

    it's shit at dynamically reconfiguring systems (e.g. network reconfiguration for Wifi.),

    Why in the love of all that is Unix would you expect init to handle network configuration? Its job is to start and stop things, not to reconfigure your NIC. This mindset is exactly how we got systemd when we didn't really need it. We should have been able to use selinux to run X without root.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"