9 ms·

They are asking $50 for something that there are other open source solutions for. It would be interesting to find out how much of the original source code is th

They are asking $50 for something that there are other open source solutions for. It would be interesting to find out how much of the original source code is the developers and how much is just repackaging of one of the multitude of open source X servers for Windows that are currently available. Originally thinking it was another open source project, I looked at the website to see if there were some features that would be worth it to switch from VcXsrv. Mostly it talked about how there was a windowed mode that allowed seamless integration with Windows. Wow how revolutionary! /s

naikrovek 6y ago
I don't know how much code is shared, if any, but I do know that xming and vcxsrv both crash for me constantly and X410 doesn't. Like, ever. I got it on sale, but I'd pay full price solely for the amount of headache it has saved me.
- paulie_a 6y ago
  50 bucks is peanuts if it saves headaches
otec 6y ago
It's 80% discount for next 16 days in app store apprently
- topspin 6y ago
  I just bought it on spec. The terms claim you can install it on 10 machines! $1/box is pretty cost effective. I've paid for xming a couple times in the last few years. Doesn't quite cut it with certain applications; various show stopper glitches. Really would like to solve the X Windows on Windows problem once and for all. There are other posts speculating on the code base; isn't this just X.Org for Windows repackaged? Yes, it is based on X.Org. The publisher explains it on the site; it's X.Org with pre-Window 10 support removed and otherwise optimized and enhanced.
- numpad0 6y ago
  I've never seen it being sold at less than 75% off. "Limited Time Offer" you say, "technically illegal tactic" I read
  - indymike 6y ago
    Could you please explain the illegality?
    - mjlee 6y ago
      At least in the UK there is some guidance and judgement around discounted prices being related to a price that was actually used in the past. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/promotional-savings-claims.html https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/promotional-savings-cla... I'm not sure how much of it legally enforceable vs adhering to some code of conduct.
ahupp 6y ago
I bought it for $10 ("$40 off") and that's still how its listed for me. I never tried the other free options but reviews online were consistent that X410 was good. I've been happy with it.
- cookiecaper 6y ago
  Same, that was probably at least a year ago. For all intents and purposes, it's $10. I've also been pretty happy with it, and substantive new features are added regularly. There's a couple little annoyances from the design assumption that the user's main interest is WSL, but for the most part, it's been much smoother than the other X11-for-Win32 variants. Support was recently added for listening on a hyperv vsock, but again, it assumes that you're using Windows on the hardware and connecting to a virtualized Linux. The vsock-win32 driver for KVM is supposedly coming soon and then it will be fun to explore just reversing the tunnel and see what we can get done that way.
  - selfishgene 6y ago
    What do you mean by "reverse the tunnel" and what would you hope to get done with it?
    - tmzt 6y ago
      It sounds like they mean running X apps on the Linux host displayed in a Windows VM.
int_19h 6y ago
They used to sell it for much cheaper - way back when I got it, I'm pretty sure it was under $10. If they raised it that much, surely that's a sign of demand? I have little doubt that it's a polished fork, but what ultimately matters is the value added - in this case, the value is, "it just works". The only thing I had to do manually was to configure DISPLAY=:0 system-wide in my WSL.
- smabie 6y ago
  I mean, that's the only thing you have to do with VcXsrv..
- jarfil 6y ago
  Have you tried Cygwin's X server? I've been using it for many years already with no problems, and it's free (both as in beer and as in freedom).
  - rosywoozlechan 6y ago
    That's Cygwin, not WSL. I don't think those two are compatible. I think people want the actual Linux you can get with WSL, not a pseudo-Linux like Cygwin.
    - Jnr 6y ago
      It doesn't matter what X server you are running. It is a server, you can send data to it, and it will render the windows. In this case you tell WSL to use X server on Windows and it will work. I think I used Xming for this purpose before. You can also render windows on other computers if network is open and access is provided.
    - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
      There's no way to run a XServer under WSL because WSL doesn't expose the Win32 session at all, unlike Interix. I'm about 100% sure this thing just wraps the Cygwin X server, seeing its rootless support has exactly the same glitches.
    - 6y ago
oefrha 6y ago
Sorry to break it to you, but there’s nothing immoral about repackaging open source software (even if there’s no value-add at all, which is not true in this case) and trying to make a living out of it, as long as it respects the license of the project being repackaged. On a more personal note, I checked out your profile and you don’t seem to be contributing to open source much, so maybe first try to bring us something revolutionary (or not) yourself. Edit: Okay, let me expand. As an actual honest-to-god contributor to open source (as in my work is used by at least tens of thousands of people), I’m tired of shallow dismissal of commercial software in the name of open source, especially when said dismissal comes from someone who’s just an open source leecher.
- jchw 6y ago
  I think you are mistaking legal obligations for morality. I believe what they are doing is probably fine. However, without properly stating their value-add, it may be misleading to users that do not understand there are also open source options with very similar functionality. I think I get the idea, but nonetheless. Legality and whatnot aside, I do believe there is a spirit of open source. Like, if everyone in the world behaved the “worst” they could while fulfilling all legal obligations, nothing would be functional at all anywhere. Similarly open source depends on certain behaviors, like sharing, community, etc. I believe everyone that uses open source, especially those who benefit off of it, should behave in a way that if everyone behaved like them, things would continue to function. In that vein, I hope they do contribute upstream where it makes sense to, at the very minimum, like applicable bug fixes. There’s probably no legal obligation to do so (X11 is MIT license, right?), and of course it would help their “competition” to do so. But I do believe it is certainly in the spirit.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    > I do believe there is a spirit of open source. The only things defining open source and free software are the copyright hacks that are licenses such as GPL, MIT, BSD, etc. If someone wants their code to not be used a certain way, they can adapt their license it to avoid it.
crispinb 6y ago
As others have said, it's normally on sale for less. Back when I was using Windows, I found it much less troublesome than the alternatives coupled with WSL, and it's well documented and comes with decent support. It was well worth the $ for me.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
The most successful open source company ever (RedHat) made their whole business packaging up open source in a nice manner. People will pay for convenience and polish. Also, i would guess that Windows users are not likely to be free software purists and just wants something that works with a minimum of fuss. The price of software should be based on the value it provides to the user, not on what it cost to make it.
- fragmede 6y ago
  That glosses over RedHat's strong arm sales tactics of the community, and rules-lawyering the GPL. Redistributing "their" source, as allowed by the GPL, is liable for your support license to not get renewed. And where's the Red Hat kernel source in a digestible format? I haven't followed recently, but they were at one point distributing their diffs to the mainline kernel as a single giant patch file and arguing that it was okay. It may abide by the letter of the GPL, but it's against the spirit of interoperability. RedHat's the first billion dollar Linux company, but first and foremost it's a business. Their sales people are aggressive and their lawyer's hungry. Support contracts don't exactly fly off the shelves, especially when there's a huge community of experts. How many people do you know that have given money to Canonical for Ubuntu?
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > ...rules-lawyering the GPL. Redistributing "their" source, as allowed by the GPL, is liable for your support license to not get renewed. There isn't anything wrong with that at all. If someone is undermining RedHat's business model it is reasonable for RedHat not to support them. The spirit of the GPL is the source code should be available and the user can do what they like with it. RedHat makes the source code available and the user can do whatever they like with it. No principle says RedHat has to like what people do with their GPL-ed code. Quite the reverse is expected, in fact.
    - fragmede 6y ago
      The reverse is not expected. The spirit of the GPL is to make source code available. Why? So that anyone can maintain the software. Thus there's an expectation (however naive) that the code is in a usable format because that's kind of the point of having the source. RedHat, however, provides the source in an obtuse format, a format that isn't even how it's used it internally. That is to say, they go above and beyond, in order to make their source harder to use. I'd say that pretty directly violates the spirit, if not the letter of the GPL. The other part is that the GPL explicitly grants customers the right to redistribute the changes. That's pretty wild. Buying a DVD copy of Avengers doesn't give me the right to setup Avengersflix.com and sell subscriptions. GPL software does. RedHat then turns around and says if you actually do that, then fuck you (paraphrased a bit). They are entirely within their rights to do that, but if you're telling me the spirit of the GPL gives me a right that I'm not actually supposed to exercise, then we'll just have to disagree. (Un)forunately for me, the legal system looks at the letter of the GPL rather than the spirit, so what Redhat's doing is legal. Why does the GPL explicitly grant that permission if it isn't meant to be exercised? Why did RedHat choose the GPL? They didn't, is the answer. It chose them. The two fundamental pieces, GNU libc and the Linux kernel, are LGPL and GPLv2 licensed, respectively, along with many other packages, and relicensing them is not something RedHat has the rights to do. Hence, RedHat's strong-arm tactics to force people into buying expensive support contracts. There's nothing legally wrong with what they're doing but it's still a dick move by RedHat. Sure, RedHat's dick move is in response to Oracle's dick move, but two wrongs don't make a right. They do make a billion dollar business though. There are other more opinionated licenses that RedHat could adopt for new software that they do own the copyright to. For the conscientious objector software developer, there's the idea of the Non-Military Open Source License which says the military is not allowed to use the software. There's the AGPL, which is a further left license that says if you use my website, I owe you the source, and all modifications to it. Hell, RedHat can afford the lawyers to write their own license that says companies started by Larry Ellison aren't allowed access to the source.
thejosh 6y ago
What's wrong with selling software?
gigatexal 6y ago
I don’t mind the price. They need to fund development. More open source projects should do the same. And being rather niche on the Microsoft store means they’re already catering to a consumer that is under the impression to buy something whereas if this were a normal Ubuntu desktop it’s free.
walshemj 6y ago
Is there one I have tried in the past and not had any sucsess
rollingbarreler 6y ago
I don't think there is anything wrong with paying for software. Free software isn't about the price, it's about the liberty,freedom of the software itself.
- ken 6y ago
  Is this free software? It looks like this doesn’t give the user freedom, either.
  - lottin 6y ago
    Zero mentions of the licensing terms on the main page, which makes me very suspicious.
0x8BADF00D 6y ago
I picked it up for around 10 IIRC. Have also used Xming in the past (not on Win10). Liked how simple and easy X410 was to setup. It worked flawlessly with WSL.

naikrovek 6y ago

I don't know how much code is shared, if any, but I do know that xming and vcxsrv both crash for me constantly and X410 doesn't. Like, ever. I got it on sale, but I'd pay full price solely for the amount of headache it has saved me.

paulie_a 6y ago
50 bucks is peanuts if it saves headaches

otec 6y ago

It's 80% discount for next 16 days in app store apprently

topspin 6y ago
I just bought it on spec. The terms claim you can install it on 10 machines! $1/box is pretty cost effective. I've paid for xming a couple times in the last few years. Doesn't quite cut it with certain applications; various show stopper glitches. Really would like to solve the X Windows on Windows problem once and for all. There are other posts speculating on the code base; isn't this just X.Org for Windows repackaged? Yes, it is based on X.Org. The publisher explains it on the site; it's X.Org with pre-Window 10 support removed and otherwise optimized and enhanced.
numpad0 6y ago
I've never seen it being sold at less than 75% off. "Limited Time Offer" you say, "technically illegal tactic" I read
- indymike 6y ago
  Could you please explain the illegality?
  - mjlee 6y ago
    At least in the UK there is some guidance and judgement around discounted prices being related to a price that was actually used in the past. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/promotional-savings-claims.html https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/promotional-savings-cla... I'm not sure how much of it legally enforceable vs adhering to some code of conduct.

ahupp 6y ago

I bought it for $10 ("$40 off") and that's still how its listed for me. I never tried the other free options but reviews online were consistent that X410 was good. I've been happy with it.

cookiecaper 6y ago
Same, that was probably at least a year ago. For all intents and purposes, it's $10. I've also been pretty happy with it, and substantive new features are added regularly. There's a couple little annoyances from the design assumption that the user's main interest is WSL, but for the most part, it's been much smoother than the other X11-for-Win32 variants. Support was recently added for listening on a hyperv vsock, but again, it assumes that you're using Windows on the hardware and connecting to a virtualized Linux. The vsock-win32 driver for KVM is supposedly coming soon and then it will be fun to explore just reversing the tunnel and see what we can get done that way.
- selfishgene 6y ago
  What do you mean by "reverse the tunnel" and what would you hope to get done with it?
  - tmzt 6y ago
    It sounds like they mean running X apps on the Linux host displayed in a Windows VM.

int_19h 6y ago

They used to sell it for much cheaper - way back when I got it, I'm pretty sure it was under $10. If they raised it that much, surely that's a sign of demand? I have little doubt that it's a polished fork, but what ultimately matters is the value added - in this case, the value is, "it just works". The only thing I had to do manually was to configure DISPLAY=:0 system-wide in my WSL.

smabie 6y ago
I mean, that's the only thing you have to do with VcXsrv..
jarfil 6y ago
Have you tried Cygwin's X server? I've been using it for many years already with no problems, and it's free (both as in beer and as in freedom).
- rosywoozlechan 6y ago
  That's Cygwin, not WSL. I don't think those two are compatible. I think people want the actual Linux you can get with WSL, not a pseudo-Linux like Cygwin.
  - Jnr 6y ago
    It doesn't matter what X server you are running. It is a server, you can send data to it, and it will render the windows. In this case you tell WSL to use X server on Windows and it will work. I think I used Xming for this purpose before. You can also render windows on other computers if network is open and access is provided.
  - AshamedCaptain 6y ago
    There's no way to run a XServer under WSL because WSL doesn't expose the Win32 session at all, unlike Interix. I'm about 100% sure this thing just wraps the Cygwin X server, seeing its rootless support has exactly the same glitches.
  - 6y ago

oefrha 6y ago

Sorry to break it to you, but there’s nothing immoral about repackaging open source software (even if there’s no value-add at all, which is not true in this case) and trying to make a living out of it, as long as it respects the license of the project being repackaged. On a more personal note, I checked out your profile and you don’t seem to be contributing to open source much, so maybe first try to bring us something revolutionary (or not) yourself. Edit: Okay, let me expand. As an actual honest-to-god contributor to open source (as in my work is used by at least tens of thousands of people), I’m tired of shallow dismissal of commercial software in the name of open source, especially when said dismissal comes from someone who’s just an open source leecher.

jchw 6y ago
I think you are mistaking legal obligations for morality. I believe what they are doing is probably fine. However, without properly stating their value-add, it may be misleading to users that do not understand there are also open source options with very similar functionality. I think I get the idea, but nonetheless. Legality and whatnot aside, I do believe there is a spirit of open source. Like, if everyone in the world behaved the “worst” they could while fulfilling all legal obligations, nothing would be functional at all anywhere. Similarly open source depends on certain behaviors, like sharing, community, etc. I believe everyone that uses open source, especially those who benefit off of it, should behave in a way that if everyone behaved like them, things would continue to function. In that vein, I hope they do contribute upstream where it makes sense to, at the very minimum, like applicable bug fixes. There’s probably no legal obligation to do so (X11 is MIT license, right?), and of course it would help their “competition” to do so. But I do believe it is certainly in the spirit.
- dgellow 6y ago
  > I do believe there is a spirit of open source. The only things defining open source and free software are the copyright hacks that are licenses such as GPL, MIT, BSD, etc. If someone wants their code to not be used a certain way, they can adapt their license it to avoid it.

crispinb 6y ago

As others have said, it's normally on sale for less. Back when I was using Windows, I found it much less troublesome than the alternatives coupled with WSL, and it's well documented and comes with decent support. It was well worth the $ for me.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

The most successful open source company ever (RedHat) made their whole business packaging up open source in a nice manner. People will pay for convenience and polish. Also, i would guess that Windows users are not likely to be free software purists and just wants something that works with a minimum of fuss. The price of software should be based on the value it provides to the user, not on what it cost to make it.

fragmede 6y ago
That glosses over RedHat's strong arm sales tactics of the community, and rules-lawyering the GPL. Redistributing "their" source, as allowed by the GPL, is liable for your support license to not get renewed. And where's the Red Hat kernel source in a digestible format? I haven't followed recently, but they were at one point distributing their diffs to the mainline kernel as a single giant patch file and arguing that it was okay. It may abide by the letter of the GPL, but it's against the spirit of interoperability. RedHat's the first billion dollar Linux company, but first and foremost it's a business. Their sales people are aggressive and their lawyer's hungry. Support contracts don't exactly fly off the shelves, especially when there's a huge community of experts. How many people do you know that have given money to Canonical for Ubuntu?
- roenxi 6y ago
  > ...rules-lawyering the GPL. Redistributing "their" source, as allowed by the GPL, is liable for your support license to not get renewed. There isn't anything wrong with that at all. If someone is undermining RedHat's business model it is reasonable for RedHat not to support them. The spirit of the GPL is the source code should be available and the user can do what they like with it. RedHat makes the source code available and the user can do whatever they like with it. No principle says RedHat has to like what people do with their GPL-ed code. Quite the reverse is expected, in fact.
  - fragmede 6y ago
    The reverse is not expected. The spirit of the GPL is to make source code available. Why? So that anyone can maintain the software. Thus there's an expectation (however naive) that the code is in a usable format because that's kind of the point of having the source. RedHat, however, provides the source in an obtuse format, a format that isn't even how it's used it internally. That is to say, they go above and beyond, in order to make their source harder to use. I'd say that pretty directly violates the spirit, if not the letter of the GPL. The other part is that the GPL explicitly grants customers the right to redistribute the changes. That's pretty wild. Buying a DVD copy of Avengers doesn't give me the right to setup Avengersflix.com and sell subscriptions. GPL software does. RedHat then turns around and says if you actually do that, then fuck you (paraphrased a bit). They are entirely within their rights to do that, but if you're telling me the spirit of the GPL gives me a right that I'm not actually supposed to exercise, then we'll just have to disagree. (Un)forunately for me, the legal system looks at the letter of the GPL rather than the spirit, so what Redhat's doing is legal. Why does the GPL explicitly grant that permission if it isn't meant to be exercised? Why did RedHat choose the GPL? They didn't, is the answer. It chose them. The two fundamental pieces, GNU libc and the Linux kernel, are LGPL and GPLv2 licensed, respectively, along with many other packages, and relicensing them is not something RedHat has the rights to do. Hence, RedHat's strong-arm tactics to force people into buying expensive support contracts. There's nothing legally wrong with what they're doing but it's still a dick move by RedHat. Sure, RedHat's dick move is in response to Oracle's dick move, but two wrongs don't make a right. They do make a billion dollar business though. There are other more opinionated licenses that RedHat could adopt for new software that they do own the copyright to. For the conscientious objector software developer, there's the idea of the Non-Military Open Source License which says the military is not allowed to use the software. There's the AGPL, which is a further left license that says if you use my website, I owe you the source, and all modifications to it. Hell, RedHat can afford the lawyers to write their own license that says companies started by Larry Ellison aren't allowed access to the source.

thejosh 6y ago

What's wrong with selling software?

gigatexal 6y ago

I don’t mind the price. They need to fund development. More open source projects should do the same. And being rather niche on the Microsoft store means they’re already catering to a consumer that is under the impression to buy something whereas if this were a normal Ubuntu desktop it’s free.

walshemj 6y ago

Is there one I have tried in the past and not had any sucsess

rollingbarreler 6y ago

I don't think there is anything wrong with paying for software. Free software isn't about the price, it's about the liberty,freedom of the software itself.

ken 6y ago
Is this free software? It looks like this doesn’t give the user freedom, either.
- lottin 6y ago
  Zero mentions of the licensing terms on the main page, which makes me very suspicious.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago

I picked it up for around 10 IIRC. Have also used Xming in the past (not on Win10). Liked how simple and easy X410 was to setup. It worked flawlessly with WSL.