Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 15th Oct 2006 18:32 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation The proposed design for Voyager, which aims to become an OS/2 replacement, is now available. "Voyager is the codename for the idea of having a replacement OS/2 on top of modern technology. This idea is the result of around 1.5 years of thinking a lot about what we can do in the future as current OS/2 and eComStation users. Note that it's absolutely impossible to convey what we plan to do in a few sentences. I made a speech on it at Warpstock Europe 2005 that, by itself, took 1.5 hours so you get the point." Read the Voyager FAQ to understand what it actually is and aims to become.
Thread beginning with comment 171932
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Well, what shall I say:
by rx182 on Sun 15th Oct 2006 20:57 UTC in reply to "Well, what shall I say:"
Member since:

Not everyone like X and that's understandable. The core X protocol is hard to understand (too hard for what it is does). Xlib too. And this thing doesn't even provide basic widgets that would probably make things faster. Anyway, Xlib is out of the race now with XCB. But the problem is that XCB is barely documented. I had to reread alot about core X protocol and Xlib to understand it. And finally, there're all the extensions...making things even more annoying.

X is outdated. And unless you want to keep compatibility with X applications, you better leave it alone. Anyway, for what it does it's pretty useless. Just use their video card drivers from the DRI project and start your own thing. Or use DirectFB. Or maybe OpenGL directly...

But there's still a way to to take advantage of X. It's not all that bad. One could make a GUI on top of X with only the root window. It would use it X for drawing operations and user input only. Everything else would be handled by such the windowing logic, etc. The great thing about that is that you could run X applications...making the transition easier...

My $0,02 =)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, what shall I say:
by rayiner on Sun 15th Oct 2006 21:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Well, what shall I say:"
rayiner Member since:

XCB doesn't really need to be documented. It's just a t hin wrapper over the X protocol, which is itself quite well documented.

As for being outdated --- I don't see what's so outdated about the X protocol. It creates graphics contexts, windows, handles input, etc. There is just not a lot of new things to do in these areas. I mean, no matter how fancy your OpenGL-based windowing system is, you're still going to need to create windows, graphics contexts, handle mouse events, and is there a huge incentive to do these things in a fundementally different way?

There are legitimate reasons to avoid X, however. It's a big piece of code, and if you don't want to use the core X or RENDER to do drawing (you don't), then you're going to have to do some surgery, which won't be easy. Of course, using DRI independently of X will be a lot of work too, so you're probably not saving much.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Well, what shall I say:
by d3vi1 on Mon 16th Oct 2006 12:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Well, what shall I say:"
d3vi1 Member since:

X is one of the greatest things ever. The arguments that I hear everythime there is an X flame are the same.
1) X has no standard widget kit. That is pretty normal as it is not the point of the project. There are NO graphical systems (including the MacOS one and the Windows one) that also provide widget sets. They are another issue. Actually, you never work with the graphical system, but with the widget set when you program. The separation is normal, and it allows GTK apps (for example), to run on Windows natively (without the need for X11).
2) Extensions are anoying? Modularity is something that makes any software great. I doubt that you need desktop compozitioning on a Cell phone, or changing the resolution on a POS. Having extensions makes the X11 framework modular, and it helps aplications when they need to query the capabilities of the host.

The following paragraphs 2 are the ones that surprised me the most. Use only the Root Window? One of the advantages of X is the fact that you can pipe different individual applications through a network connection. What would be the difference between X and Remote Desktop if I could only have the whole desktop on a remote computer, when I need only one small app.

A few weeks ago I visited a monitoring station for the national power grid. They had a huge display (roughly 30ft wide, 5 ft tall) that would show in different windows the logical map of the system, graphs of the frequency and other stuff. It was because of X11 that they could have all those applications that rand on different UNIX servers, on a central display.

I, as an administrator, have on my desktop different monitoring applications that show the status of a few, but important servers. The applications are actually running on those servers and only the display is found on my workstation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

flywheel Member since:

Not everybody is dependant, nor want the capabilities to export a display.
OS/2 is not capable at this, at this minute - which means there's no culture that demands it.

Reply Parent Score: 1