Linked by Kroc Camen on Mon 24th Aug 2009 13:09 UTC
Podcasts

Linux user Tess Flynn joins us to follow up on the feedback from last week's episode about Xorg.

Download .mp3 | Subscribe in iTunes | Subscribe RSS

Thread beginning with comment 380287
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Some corrections
by ideasman42 on Mon 24th Aug 2009 15:17 UTC
ideasman42
Member since:
2007-07-20

the BSD's use Xorg too, if you look at xorg's site there is no reference to Linux specifically as being the target.

Regarding OpenGL and directX being fairly new, depends on what you consider new but openGL has been fairly standardized since ~1992. so Xorg and friends have had enough time to support this (tho its a moving target ofcourse).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Some corrections
by kaiwai on Mon 24th Aug 2009 16:21 in reply to "Some corrections"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

the BSD's use Xorg too, if you look at xorg's site there is no reference to Linux specifically as being the target.


There is no explicit platform stated on their website but the code itself speaks volumes; it is GCC bound and Linux focused and worse there is a a growing reliance on HAL when HAL should already be getting put out of its misery and replaced with something better.

The lack of focus is what the problem is - anyone who dares to bring focus to the project is instantly lynched and kicked out by 'geek rage'. This same 'geek rage' then turns around whining because users like me, my friends or parents aren't willing to give Linux a 'fair shake'.

Why the heck should anyone give Linux a 'fair shake' when the developers themselves aren't willing to listen to constructive feedback and criticism? I've already talked about my experiences in the past - which replicate what others have found.

Regarding OpenGL and directX being fairly new, depends on what you consider new but openGL has been fairly standardized since ~1992. so Xorg and friends have had enough time to support this (tho its a moving target ofcourse).


That is the role of Mesa. There seems to be a habit in the OSS world that when something moves beyond an exact target and the requirements become exceptionally broad that all hell breaks loose. Take distributions - the applications by themselves are great, but when there is an attempt to bring it altogether in a coherent manner - it always seems to turn out crap.

Edited 2009-08-24 16:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Some corrections
by ideasman42 on Mon 24th Aug 2009 18:21 in reply to "RE: Some corrections"
ideasman42 Member since:
2007-07-20

Re: BSD's using Xorg, even if its biased towards linux (with HAL), BSD's are using Xorg, and AFAIK they are not planning on their own implementation.

Re: Mesa.
I wouldn't say its only mesa, its more a problem of everything working together Xorg having interfaces for OpenGL to take advantage of (glx, dri etc), and whoever writes the drivers making proper use of these facilities.

Edited 2009-08-24 18:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Some corrections
by Lennie on Mon 24th Aug 2009 19:32 in reply to "RE: Some corrections"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

There is no explicit platform stated on their website but the code itself speaks volumes; it is GCC bound and Linux focused and worse there is a a growing reliance on HAL when HAL should already be getting put out of its misery and replaced with something better.

I think things are improving, like their is now a OpenBSD-developer on the X.org-board.

Maybe the applications use HAL or the new *kit-stuff, but X.org doesn't. I guess you could say that's just the freedesktop-stuff that relies on HAL and *kit.

The more I think about it, their has been a lot of improvements. It's impressive. Ever since X.org was created a lot of things started to improve and they aren't done yet, in a few years I think things will look very different.

I really liked this podcast a lot better, it's a lot more balanced. :-) The Free Software Magazine articles also helps to explain a lot.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Some corrections
by strcpy on Tue 25th Aug 2009 10:23 in reply to "RE: Some corrections"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Once again you nailed it, kaiwai.

I would perhaps even dare to say that too high reliance on Linux and its quirks is one core part of X's problems -- in a sense of "trees, forest, and seeing".

Edited 2009-08-25 10:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Some corrections
by dante on Tue 25th Aug 2009 18:14 in reply to "RE: Some corrections"
dante Member since:
2009-08-25

When XOrg crashes, the applications are not required to terminate. The reason they exit -- or crash, is because of XLib. XLib having been designed more than 20 years ago, assumed that an application would never outlive the server. XCB fixes this, as well as other issues from XLib.

Additionally, it isn't the job of the X server to manage running applications. It provides a session managment extension and a library, libSM, but ultimately, this is the job of the window manager or desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Some corrections
by jscipione on Tue 25th Aug 2009 22:49 in reply to "RE: Some corrections"
jscipione Member since:
2009-08-22

Exactly, X is and has been improving since X.org split from Xfree86 to improve the X11 server and bring it up to speed with modern desktop OS's. X11 at its heart is good and replacing it would be difficult and unnecessary.

Reply Parent Score: 1