Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Feb 2006 12:22 UTC, submitted by Rahul
X11, Window Managers Updated: Fedora was right in the middle of announcing all this properly, so here is the updated item containing the official names. Videos included, as well as the inevitable 'Why not Xgl?'. "AIGLX is a project that aims to enable GL-accelerated effects on a standard desktop. We have a lightly modified X server (that includes a couple of extensions), an updated Mesa package that adds some new protocol support and a version of metacity with a composite manager. The end result is that you can use GL effects on your desktop with very few changes, the ability to turn it on and off at will, and you don't have to replace your X server in the process." This is part of Fedora's Rendering Project, and instructions on how to install all this are available too.
Thread beginning with comment 97495
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not Invented Here
by JCooper on Mon 20th Feb 2006 13:44 UTC
JCooper
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is it RedHat always seems to take a "not invented here" approach to advances developed outside of RedHat? I thought the idea of Fedora was to open up the geek-flavour of RHL to permit more involvement with the community. All this appears to be is Yet Another Acceleration of X development. Could time be better spent on improving XGL, which (based on the notes in that thread) is more stable, applicable to more hardware, and a better implementation?

Or am I missing something?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not Invented Here
by manmist on Mon 20th Feb 2006 14:27 in reply to "Not Invented Here"
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"Why is it RedHat always seems to take a "not invented here" approach to advances developed outside of RedHat? I thought the idea of Fedora was to open up the geek-flavour of RHL to permit more involvement with the community"

This work started within Xorg team started long before Novell decided to take a different approach. So ask Novell instead of RH on this.

"All this appears to be is Yet Another Acceleration f X development. Could time be better spent on improving XGL, which (based on the notes in that thread) is more stable, applicable to more hardware, and a better implementation? "

You can continue to believe that code that is already is Xorg cvs is not stable compared to Novell closed development which has undergo no peer review or integration with the primary Xorg project.


"Or am I missing something"

Yes. You are barking up the wrong tree. Neither Red Hat nor Mandrake or any other organisation is working on XGL and has gone for a different approach. Novell basically decided to do closed development and wants everyone now to accept that.

http://lwn.net/Articles/171155/

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/metacity-devel-list/2006-February/ms...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Not Invented Here
by poofyhairguy on Mon 20th Feb 2006 21:55 in reply to "RE: Not Invented Here"
poofyhairguy Member since:
2005-07-14


You can continue to believe that code that is already is Xorg cvs is not stable compared to Novell closed development which has undergo no peer review or integration with the primary Xorg project.


I will, because unlike you I have tried both the new Metacity and XGL and XGL is far better and more stable. Long time composite problems are fixed completely by XGL. If you want a list find one here:

http://linuxeyecandy.blogspot.com/

And deal with the fact that behind closed doors at Novell David did better than the rest of the community all put together.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not Invented Here
by Dark_Knight on Mon 20th Feb 2006 16:45 in reply to "Not Invented Here"
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Manmist,

RE:"You are barking up the wrong tree. Neither Red Hat nor Mandrake or any other organisation is working on XGL and has gone for a different approach. Novell basically decided to do closed development and wants everyone now to accept that."

So what you're implying is that we should ignore Novell R & D resources which are structured and well financed and instead look to disorganization as being good for consumers and the Linux community as a whole? You seem to forget what Novell has done for the Linux community and consumers in general. Such as releasing projects like YAST and AppArmor under the GPL, fighting FUD from SCO and Microsoft, etc. What have companies such as Red Hat and Mandriva done in the last year that is so significant and wasn't just an attempt to make money?

The way I see it is that Novell made a business decision that was in the best interest for consumers, not just their customers and used their resources to complete the project on time. Then they released the finalized project for other Linux developers to either use it or not. There's nothing stopping Red Hat, etc from reviewing the code as it's under the GPL. Let's also realize the reality is that Microsoft temorarily stopped developement of WinFS for Windows Vista so they can push it out the door sooner rather than later to market globally (Q3/Q4 2006 instead of Q4 2007). Sometimes having a small trained group working on a project is better because it's more focused than having a large group which tends to cause longer discussion, thus delays a project release.

Edited 2006-02-20 16:49

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not Invented Here
by manmist on Mon 20th Feb 2006 17:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Invented Here"
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"
So what you're implying is that we should ignore Novell R & D resources which are structured and well financed and instead look to disorganization as being good for consumers and the Linux community as a whole?"


There is obsolutely no need to do this within closed doors.

"You seem to forget what Novell has done for the Linux community and consumers in general. Such as releasing projects like YAST and AppArmor under the GPL, fighting FUD from SCO and Microsoft, etc"

SELinux is already upstream. Why is Novell selling security as a proprietary add on?. The user space solution for apprmor is still proprietary for your information.


"There's nothing stopping Red Hat, etc from reviewing the code as it's under the GPL."

Its not. Its under the Xorg license. Atleast get the facts straight

:What have companies such as Red Hat and Mandriva done in the last year that is so significant and wasn't just an attempt to make money?:

Who maintains glibc, gcc, large portions of the linux kernel.large amount of GNOME modules etc?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Not Invented Here
by somebody on Mon 20th Feb 2006 17:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Invented Here"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

So what you're implying is that we should ignore Novell R & D resources which are structured and well financed and instead look to disorganization as being good for consumers and the Linux community as a whole? You seem to forget what Novell has done for the Linux community and consumers in general. Such as releasing projects like YAST and AppArmor under the GPL, fighting FUD from SCO and Microsoft, etc. What have companies such as Red Hat and Mandriva done in the last year that is so significant and wasn't just an attempt to make money?

I think none of the posts said that, at least in this tone. Novell rightully got all the bling from this. No argue here.

Me personally, I'm all for the solution like this sooner than later, that's why I use Novells XGL now. But, I won't mind keeping the Novell-like bling after XOrg reorganizes and standardises it to something that can be called standard like "just works" solution. And having more solutions makes the possibility to pick the best one for basic default. Which is all that free software is about and it is how things worked in OSS from the dawn of time.

The way I see it is that Novell made a business decision that was in the best interest for consumers, not just their customers and used their resources to complete the project on time.

Yep, and this is where problems can start. You just have to look at it from distance. Read XDevConf papers and connect the presented technologies.

X needs a lot more global attention than just eye candy.

Let's also realize the reality is that Microsoft temorarily stopped developement of WinFS for Windows Vista so they can push it out the door sooner rather than later to market globally (Q3/Q4 2006 instead of Q4 2007). Sometimes having a small trained group working on a project is better because it's more focused than having a large group which tends to cause longer discussion, thus delays a project release.

Which works in MS case as charm. MS doesn't need to worry about getting attention from HW vendors. Linux is not so lucky.

And they all have common working environment. How would this work in free software where people mostly live in different countries?

What you said is equal to Novell taking the whole Linux development on it self and boost production. It is just too big project for this to happen'.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Not Invented Here
by gilboa on Mon 20th Feb 2006 18:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Invented Here"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

What have companies such as Red Hat and Mandriva done in the last year that is so significant and wasn't just an attempt to make money?

You *are* kidding right?
I'd suggest you check the kernel, gcc and gnome change logs.
Just type "gcc "at redhat dot com" site:gcc.gnu.org" in your google search bar.

Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Not Invented Here
by somebody on Mon 20th Feb 2006 17:35 in reply to "Not Invented Here"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

First, not to belittle Novells compiz+XGL. I don't. I'm still picking up my jaws from the floor ever since I saw it.

Why is it RedHat always seems to take a "not invented here" approach to advances developed outside of RedHat?

Because those two are different, read
http://freedesktop.org/~krh/aiglx.pdf

Another work from RH here:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/xdc2006.pdf

And fairly connected from the Sun
http://mediacast.sun.com/share/alanc/xdevconf06-fbpm.pdf

Again presentations from NVidia
http://download.nvidia.com/developer/presentations/2006/xdevconf/nv...
http://download.nvidia.com/developer/presentations/2006/xdevconf/co...

more here (hackfesting at XDC)
http://anholt.livejournal.com/
or at least the part where he says about AIGLX being non-implemented plan for 5 years already

This is correct approach (at least in my opinion) to this problem. Novell went for faster implementation to get the same result and RH went for more politicaly correct implementation where even Novells solution could still reside with not so many modifications but suddenly with a politicaly correct status and the same effect.

And if you read this papers you can see how nicely all works stack up ( PowerManagment(Sun) + X Deconstruction(RH) ) => Indirect GLX or NVida presentations => (Composite manager of your choice: Compiz, Metacity or some other) => hopefully what we all wish for

In the end result should be the same as now with Compiz+GLX, except everything should "Just work" instead of "Maybe if you're lucky" like it is now

As for people saying XeGL being the right solution. Well, yes it is. But unfortunatelly just as much as saying NVidia driver is the right one for your card (yes, it works if your card is NVidia. Otherwise? Well, your X sucks major since it doesn't work). XeGL depends on hardware that can drive the needed resources (in this case GL support, read NVidia paper for better info) while AIGLX overlays X and works without GL support too. You simply have to disable it, nothing else.

All this appears to be is Yet Another Acceleration of X development.

Yes, probably seems so. But after you study XDevConf papers, not really. At least I see it as politicaly correct solution.

Could time be better spent on improving XGL, which (based on the notes in that thread) is more stable, applicable to more hardware, and a better implementation?

Probably, if Novell wouldn't choose to work closed session. But projects still differentiate quite a lot.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Not Invented Here
by poofyhairguy on Mon 20th Feb 2006 22:02 in reply to "Not Invented Here"
poofyhairguy Member since:
2005-07-14

Novell went for faster implementation to get the same result and RH went for more politicaly correct implementation where even Novells solution could still reside with not so many modifications but suddenly with a politicaly correct status and the same effect.

Isn't the community great? Political correctness and politics matter more than what is done. Until Redhat fixes huge problems with their framework (and add a LOT of stuff to Metacity) then XGL+ Compiz is the better solution. Its more stable for me than any other composite manager so far, and I REALLY try to find bugs. Who cares what makes the Gnome developers sleep better at night?


In the end result should be the same as now with Compiz+GLX, except everything should "Just work" instead of "Maybe if you're lucky" like it is now


XGL + Compiz now works on far more cards than Redhat's Metacity compositor does. It doesn't have problems with video playing like the Metacity compositor (and all other compositors) does. If work was poured into XGL it would be ready by next year. A year's worth of work on the Redhat framework is whats needed to catch them up to what XGL + Compiz can do today.

Of course, Gnome might go the Redhat route since its run by a bunch of no-fun traditionalists. Thank god for KDE4 which will take David's work on the XGL and run with it. If Gnome goes the Redhat route than the tradition of Metacity being the more boring major window manager will continue!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Not Invented Here
by Pfeifer on Mon 20th Feb 2006 23:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Invented Here"
Pfeifer Member since:
2006-02-20

Believe it or not - a actually _want_ a boring window manager. Really. I want my window manager to be as boring and unobstrusive as possible - because I want my work done.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Not Invented Here
by rockmen1 on Tue 21st Feb 2006 10:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Invented Here"
rockmen1 Member since:
2006-02-04

I agree.Why Linux Desktop progress so slowly,I think the community is doing to much disgussion on the architecture rather than making things actually done.

Reply Parent Score: 1