Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2005 13:03 UTC, submitted by zam001
X11, Window Managers Aaron Siego of KDE: "It would be very nice if our X server could use OpenGL directly for its display and composition. Because then we could have hardware accelerated effects that are not only cool looking, but also very useful. Well, there is just such a project underway, called XGL. But don't hold your breath. The development of XGL has been largely removed from the community and is being done behind closed doors. Who is this company, you ask, that would take the development of something as potentially important as this out of the community and put it behind closed doors? Novell."
Thread beginning with comment 76292
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?
by on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:02 UTC

Member since:

Perhaps I'm uninformed respect to this, but aren't major QT releases done the same way more or less?

I mean, there are articles about technology previews of QT 4 ( http://dot.kde.org/1089303565/ ) that seem to indicate no previous source code was released until the work was usable enough.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?
by tbscope on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:19 in reply to "Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?"
tbscope Member since:
2005-07-06

Trolltech releases daily snapshots:
ftp://ftp.trolltech.com/qt/snapshots/

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?
by amadeo on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:36 in reply to "RE: Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

I decided to remove this post....

Edited 2005-12-20 22:36

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?
by amadeo on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:24 in reply to "Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

Perhaps I'm uninformed respect to this, but aren't major QT releases done the same way more or less?

If you want to compare a toolkit vendor, which sells commercial licenses, and therefore has to develop everything in-house, with a linux distributor that takes an already public project an bring it in house, fine...

But imagine if every linux distributor started to do the same: everybody would work on their own X or GTK or whatever fork, and sync it only during releases. That would be a nightmare.

AFAIK, Trolltech develops Qt with their own resources, and they plan to continue doing so, and therefore a public cvs makes little sense.

To sum up: on one side you have a company that takes their own code and makes it open source. On the other side, you have a linux distributor, that takes other people's code (even if the license permits) and develop it at closed doors. (There is manifested interest in the community of joint developement, there is at least one high profile developer who said he wanted to work on it.)

So if you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?
by on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:50 in reply to "RE: Unlike Trolltech + QT 4?"
Member since:

If you want to compare a toolkit vendor, which sells commercial licenses, and therefore has to develop everything in-house, with a linux distributor that takes an already public project an bring it in house, fine...

But imagine if every linux distributor started to do the same: everybody would work on their own X or GTK or whatever fork, and sync it only during releases. That would be a nightmare.


XGL never had a stable release, and the development was mostly stagnant since there were few contributors. By the way, Novell competes with Redhat for enterprise licenses, but that doesn't mean they must do all development in-house. Seems you think with toolkits it can't be the same. Also, Novell hasn't stated any plans to always keep the development in-house.

Why are you people making such pessimistic predictions? Last I heard, Novell open-sourced things like YaST and the Exchange connector when they had no need to. I'm almost sure that when they make the publicity stunt they want ("next-generation graphics in novell linux" or whatever) they'll sync the sources in public cvs and that's it (no "only sync during releases"). And keep paying a full-time developer for it.

So if you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

I see the (small) difference: a longer wait to get the first public version. Don't trouble yourself "helping me". I just don't get why some enterprises keep the development in house, will always do so and it's OK, and when Novell takes a project on the verge of being abandoned and decides to release the changes later lots of people pop around criticizing the incredible evilness of the wretched company.

Only thing I've got clear here is this: people are lusting for an XGL release and can't wait.

Reply Parent Score: 0