Linked by Rahul on Tue 4th Nov 2008 06:17 UTC
X11, Window Managers Kristian Hogsberg, Red Hat Xorg developer and the key person behind successful projects such as AIGLX, has now started working on a new project called Wayland, a tiny display server and compositing manager.
Thread beginning with comment 336277
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Nice
by silix on Tue 4th Nov 2008 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
silix
Member since:
2006-03-01

Er, hello!? Syllable www.syllable.org, Haiku haiku-os.org have had slim, modern, legacy-free GUI appservers for years!

you've forgotten SkyOS, and the most prominent of all non - Windows desktop Os's, Mac OS X ;-)
btw, with Vista, Windows too has gained a quite similar visual stack architecture - the DWM does pretty much the same task as the "application server" of other OS's
in reality, it is Linux that is the only one alleged "desktop operating system" still stuck with such an old and overly complex GUI system, instead of a more modern and streamlined architecture...

Edited 2008-11-04 15:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice
by siride on Tue 4th Nov 2008 15:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

All the OSes use more or less the same structure as Linux. Maybe X needs some optimization, but it's not fundamentally different from what the other OSes use. They all have graphics servers and client-side APIs just like X does. Even in older Windows' this was the case, although the graphics server happened to live in the kernel.

There is so much misinformation and hatred about X floating around the Internet these days. I wish it would stop.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Nice
by sj87 on Tue 4th Nov 2008 16:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

in reality, it is Linux that is the only one alleged "desktop operating system" still stuck with such an old and overly complex GUI system, instead of a more modern and streamlined architecture...

Umm, don't BSDs also use only (rarely anything else but) Xorg?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice
by silix on Tue 4th Nov 2008 16:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

Umm, don't BSDs also use only (rarely anything else but) Xorg?
yes, as they are actual UNIXes and are bound to use it, as such
otoh, they look more like server Os's to me, and don't seem to claim to be "ready for the desktop" as much as Linux does ;-)

Edited 2008-11-04 16:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice
by hamster on Tue 4th Nov 2008 16:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


Umm, don't BSDs also use only (rarely anything else but) Xorg?


NetBSD uses XFree86
Openbsd uses x.org and the sames goes for FreeBSD.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice
by siki_miki on Tue 4th Nov 2008 21:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
siki_miki Member since:
2006-01-17


Umm, don't BSDs also use only (rarely anything else but) Xorg?


If this (or X12) moves on, it will be designed around kernel graphic memory management, kernel modesetting and multiple direct rendering clients. Other OSes will have to design, or port those bits to their kernel to support properly apps that use new features. They can choose to stay with X11 as well if they wish.

Currently "classic" direct rendering and Xorg userspace driver approach is okay for BSD/Solaris except for compiz+OpenGL app combination or for some OpenGL extensions.

Yes, this looks like a playground that tries to start design of a X11 protocol successor. Complex bits needed for the new approach are landing in kernel these days.

Reply Parent Score: 2