Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Aug 2009 17:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 379087
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-08
Seeing all the rage people are defending X.org, I wished to share some technical aspects.

- the Xlib, the library used to communicate with X is not thread safe and not coder friendly.
Coders have to play with an unecessary complexity in order to create stable and non freezing UI.
- features like video acceleration or 3D are added by modules (plugins).
A graphic stack needs to be simple to use/configure/code . With X.org, a lot of code have to be written when a 'now standard' feature like compositing is not available.
- X design is based on X11, released in 1987!
It was never designed for today's graphics card, never designed for 3D, effects and video. All theses common features were added with a lot of efforts, pain, bugs and hacks. It introduced bugs and performance losses.
So you will ask, why didn't they recode it from scratch in a unified and modern stack that will reduce the code size by 10 and solve all the known issues?
The reason is simple, every linux app with a UI just RELY on X behaviours/bugs/hacks (through Xlib/QT/GTK) and nobody has enough money to spend in redeveloping all the GUI of the apps.
Sorry, but this time Thom is right