4 ms·

Did you listen to the talk? :) X.org is quite an advanced graphic system mostly doing what you want it to do. Throwing it out and trying to make something new (

by thingie 16y ago

Did you listen to the talk? :) X.org is quite an advanced graphic system mostly doing what you want it to do. Throwing it out and trying to make something new (for what gain?) means wasting so much resources that it's not even nice. (And how is X related to some start menu?)

nailer 16y ago
Depends. Most apps don't link against X, but the toolkits. If the toolkits can be modified to support a cleaner network protocol (something primarily vector based rather than bitmap based). I don't think the parent poster is saying that X is related to GNOME and KDE's start menu clones, other than they both need changing.
- thingie 16y ago
  How cleaner? X11 is very extensible, if you wanted some vector graphics methods, you could just make an extension. Whole font drawing got replaced in this way, nobody really use old X core fonts anymore, everybody now uses client-based Xft system. (Well, yes, you could make a new version without this old stuff. But backwards compatibility and so.) In fact, this is what happens if you are drawing with OpenGL, you use X11 just to make a window to draw in, set some other stuff, handle input, but drawing itself completely sidesteps X11 and X server.
  - nailer 16y ago
    Are extensions negotiated over the network? So two hosts can decide they support a random high level primitive and just send that instead?
    - thingie 16y ago
      It's always client/server asymmetric communication. Server supports QueryExtension and ListExtensions commands. You can see extensions supported by your X server with xdpyinfo command. (see www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/doc/x11proto/proto.html specification for further details)
gizmo 16y ago
You say advanced as if that's a good thing. I think a lighter system that considers hardware acceleration and multiple monitors from the ground up may be a good investment in the long run. Not to mention audio, and vector graphics and so on. Multiple X sessions (one for each monitor + one for each vnc session + virtual X sessions for whatever reason) has to be combined with Xinemera and with graphic drives and with a KDE/Gnome desktop environment... and all the parts have to fit together perfectly for the system to work. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. The whole concept of X clients and X servers... it's just too much. X was created back in the 80s, and it still doesn't get the basic usecases right. The requirements for desktop computers have shifted a lot in the last 30 years, so this kind of thing is to be expected. Starting over every 30 years? I think that's reasonable, especially when it's holding Linux back. We've learned a lot since, and X isn't going to last until 2030... so why not throw it out now?
- thingie 16y ago
  X.org considers hardware acceleration, with XRender, for example. Quite too often, buggy and incomplete graphic drivers and other problems makes it even worse than no acceleration at all. I don't really see these problems as X.org specific, is there any evidence that they are? I think it's more likely caused by very limited resources that are available, incomplete or proprietary (ati and nvidia tends to lag months behind new X server releases, would they ever catch up with a completely new system?) drivers, and other problems, and throwing out X means throwing out all effort spent to solve this problems. But that doesn't mean that it is not a good idea to explore other possibilities and experiment with another systems in parallel. Like Wayland, for example. Of course it is. Just, don't hurry with burying X11, it's the best what you've got, and likely to remain so for a long time.
  - gizmo 16y ago
    You kind of have to bury X, otherwise you're going to end up with two competing projects and then you're even worse off. See: Linux audio. If X were to disappear from the face of the earth open source programmers would scramble to get something new into place, and that would in all likelihood be better at dealing the realities of graphics today. Just because it's the best we got doesn't mean it's good enough. (I'm not advocating we actually should bury X... just making the general point that sometimes it's worth it to stake a step back to take two steps forward later. I realize it's often not politically feasible.)
wyclif 16y ago
The problem might be that the parent doesn't know the difference between X.org and XFree86.
- richardw 16y ago
  Or, maybe neither and maybe I'm referring to X11.
richardw 16y ago
X.org is just another implementation of X11. Re-implementing it isn't what I'm talking about. No, I don't expect it to be replaced, which I consider a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Limitations_and_criticisms_of_X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Limitations_and... Here's the issue: why did Apple not just use X? Important question. There isn't a relationship between X and the start menu in my statement. Yes, listened to the talk. Audio frameworks aren't why the universe isn't using Linux.
- dagw 16y ago
  Apple didn't use X because OSX is based on NeXT and NeXT didn't use X. As to why NeXT didn't go with X, I don't know, but I assume it had something to do with the state of X in 1988, and those arguments probably aren't valid any more. For me personally as a Linux user the audio framework is the one point that is causing me the most pain at the moment, and the one thing I really wish they would fix. If I could get audio working perfectly, I really cannot think of any other major complaint (other than a couple of pieces of Windows software I kind of wish I had) in my day to day Linux usage.
  - richardw 16y ago
    There was some X11 in OpenStep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep The link I put up earlier has some ref to Apple's reasoning. In the end, they decided to just replace it instead of just add the missing bits. That is really significant if X brings so much. I think it's just easier to get somewhere useful without the huge network of interested parties involved. I've watched Linux gyrate (and used it) since about 95, each year or so with a prediction it'll take over. My hope is that Google's OS will be a useful makeover for the mainstream.

by thingie 16y ago

nailer 16y ago

Depends. Most apps don't link against X, but the toolkits. If the toolkits can be modified to support a cleaner network protocol (something primarily vector based rather than bitmap based). I don't think the parent poster is saying that X is related to GNOME and KDE's start menu clones, other than they both need changing.

thingie 16y ago
How cleaner? X11 is very extensible, if you wanted some vector graphics methods, you could just make an extension. Whole font drawing got replaced in this way, nobody really use old X core fonts anymore, everybody now uses client-based Xft system. (Well, yes, you could make a new version without this old stuff. But backwards compatibility and so.) In fact, this is what happens if you are drawing with OpenGL, you use X11 just to make a window to draw in, set some other stuff, handle input, but drawing itself completely sidesteps X11 and X server.
- nailer 16y ago
  Are extensions negotiated over the network? So two hosts can decide they support a random high level primitive and just send that instead?
  - thingie 16y ago
    It's always client/server asymmetric communication. Server supports QueryExtension and ListExtensions commands. You can see extensions supported by your X server with xdpyinfo command. (see www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/doc/x11proto/proto.html specification for further details)

gizmo 16y ago

You say advanced as if that's a good thing. I think a lighter system that considers hardware acceleration and multiple monitors from the ground up may be a good investment in the long run. Not to mention audio, and vector graphics and so on. Multiple X sessions (one for each monitor + one for each vnc session + virtual X sessions for whatever reason) has to be combined with Xinemera and with graphic drives and with a KDE/Gnome desktop environment... and all the parts have to fit together perfectly for the system to work. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. The whole concept of X clients and X servers... it's just too much. X was created back in the 80s, and it still doesn't get the basic usecases right. The requirements for desktop computers have shifted a lot in the last 30 years, so this kind of thing is to be expected. Starting over every 30 years? I think that's reasonable, especially when it's holding Linux back. We've learned a lot since, and X isn't going to last until 2030... so why not throw it out now?

thingie 16y ago
X.org considers hardware acceleration, with XRender, for example. Quite too often, buggy and incomplete graphic drivers and other problems makes it even worse than no acceleration at all. I don't really see these problems as X.org specific, is there any evidence that they are? I think it's more likely caused by very limited resources that are available, incomplete or proprietary (ati and nvidia tends to lag months behind new X server releases, would they ever catch up with a completely new system?) drivers, and other problems, and throwing out X means throwing out all effort spent to solve this problems. But that doesn't mean that it is not a good idea to explore other possibilities and experiment with another systems in parallel. Like Wayland, for example. Of course it is. Just, don't hurry with burying X11, it's the best what you've got, and likely to remain so for a long time.
- gizmo 16y ago
  You kind of have to bury X, otherwise you're going to end up with two competing projects and then you're even worse off. See: Linux audio. If X were to disappear from the face of the earth open source programmers would scramble to get something new into place, and that would in all likelihood be better at dealing the realities of graphics today. Just because it's the best we got doesn't mean it's good enough. (I'm not advocating we actually should bury X... just making the general point that sometimes it's worth it to stake a step back to take two steps forward later. I realize it's often not politically feasible.)

wyclif 16y ago

The problem might be that the parent doesn't know the difference between X.org and XFree86.

richardw 16y ago
Or, maybe neither and maybe I'm referring to X11.

richardw 16y ago

X.org is just another implementation of X11. Re-implementing it isn't what I'm talking about. No, I don't expect it to be replaced, which I consider a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Limitations_and_criticisms_of_X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Limitations_and... Here's the issue: why did Apple not just use X? Important question. There isn't a relationship between X and the start menu in my statement. Yes, listened to the talk. Audio frameworks aren't why the universe isn't using Linux.

dagw 16y ago
Apple didn't use X because OSX is based on NeXT and NeXT didn't use X. As to why NeXT didn't go with X, I don't know, but I assume it had something to do with the state of X in 1988, and those arguments probably aren't valid any more. For me personally as a Linux user the audio framework is the one point that is causing me the most pain at the moment, and the one thing I really wish they would fix. If I could get audio working perfectly, I really cannot think of any other major complaint (other than a couple of pieces of Windows software I kind of wish I had) in my day to day Linux usage.
- richardw 16y ago
  There was some X11 in OpenStep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep The link I put up earlier has some ref to Apple's reasoning. In the end, they decided to just replace it instead of just add the missing bits. That is really significant if X brings so much. I think it's just easier to get somewhere useful without the huge network of interested parties involved. I've watched Linux gyrate (and used it) since about 95, each year or so with a prediction it'll take over. My hope is that Google's OS will be a useful makeover for the mainstream.