5 ms·

Anyone who believes that XFree86 was stable in 1999 was apparently running a different XFree86 to me. The sysrq key was mostly useful at the time for using the

by mjg59 4y ago

Anyone who believes that XFree86 was stable in 1999 was apparently running a different XFree86 to me. The sysrq key was mostly useful at the time for using the SAK shortcut to kill all processes on the current terminal, which with luck included your wedged XFree86 which would then get respawned by xdm. I don't miss those times.

adrianmsmith 4y ago
XFree86 in 1999 might not have been, but in 1994 when I went to university in the UK and was using Sun computers which were solely X servers to display programs running on the "main" shared computer in the corner of the room, X and all the associated software was all stable and worked fine.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Solaris X Server wasn't the same.
- vetinari 4y ago
  At our uni, we used DEC and had vxt2000 terminals. It worked fine, just like wayland does today. But it wasn't rock stable, or even remotely secure.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Secure no, lol. But in those days telnet was still the norm. At my college they didn't even have xauth implemented which was loads of fun embarrassing other users with xv and some cool pictures :P Or xblast
    - vetinari 4y ago
      We didn't have xauth either; our fun was xeyes.
sprash 4y ago
X11 became really stable in the late 00s. And since the introduction of DRI3 it is at the same technological level of Wayland concerning the efficient buffer swap mechanism. X11 is however still miles ahead on the architectural level. Parts of the system like window managers or compositors can fail or be replaced at runtime without affecting running clients. Wayland lacks the appropriate standardized interfaces for that and there are not plans if not outright refusal to actually implement them.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  The choices of architecture seem to reflect different priorities, there are things that the Wayland architecture does better than X and vice versa, aren't there? Hard to say X11 is ahead architecturally if you pick features that Wayland may not consider important. I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architecture.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    > I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architecture. For those interested in details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ
    - sprash 4y ago
      Most of the criticisms in this talk are solved with DRI3. Also this guy makes money with a consultant agency that mainly works on Wayland and indirectly profits from shitting on X11. This is not a neutral source.
      - vetinari 4y ago
        > Most of the criticisms in this talk are solved with DRI3 Not true. > Also this guy makes money with a consultant agency that mainly works an Wayland and indirectly profits from shitting on X11. Maybe his employer works on Wayland because there are no X11 jobs? > This is not a neutral source. He has experience with both, and he presents his arguments.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Anyone who believes that XFree86 was stable in 1999 was apparently running a different XFree86 to me XFree86 on Linux wasn't very stable in 1999 (although it was more than usable, more than Wayland is today). X11 on IRIX in 1999 was pretty stable. Parent said X, not specifically XFree86. also something to consider: how many people were working on Xfree86 in 1999 and how many people are working on Wayland in 2023? What was the state of the technology, tools, documentation, availability of specs, reverse engineering etc. back then? AFAIK nobody was being paid by major tech companies (RH, just to name one) to work on free software in 1999.
- bonzini 4y ago
  Parts of X have always been free. Sun and DEC among others contributed to the development of X11.
- lizknope 4y ago
  XFree86 worked fine for me since 1994. I sometimes had problems when exiting a video game like Doom or Quake. SVGAlib would give problems but that wasn't X.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    Yep, my point was my experience in 1999 with XFree86 was with Linux, which was less stable than today per se, before that I only used Xsgi on SGI Workstations, which was proprietary and was already HW accelerated.
  - LeFantome 4y ago
    It would help if you did not give easily verifiable facts to reveal the inaccuracy of your recall. You may have been using Doom in 1994 but you certainly were not using Quake. If this is an accurate memory, what year is it from?
    - lizknope 4y ago
      I installed Linux on my PC in September 1994 at the start of my sophomore year of college. I remember playing Doom during that school year from Sept 1994 to May 1995. The Quake Wiki says Qtest was released Feb 24, 1996 and I remember playing that the week it was released. I always felt that X11 on Linux was just as stable as X11 on SunOS, Solaris, Ultrix, HP-UX, IRIX, and AIX.
spacedcowboy 4y ago
Xfree86 is the commonly-used but bastard stepchild of X. X started on DEC, Sun, HP, SGI unix boxes, Linux came later. Linux is and was awesome, I still recall installing it using boot/root floppy disks, but X was around well before the '386 machine in the corner being used for CD creation was recognized as "Hey, this is actually useful"...

by mjg59 4y ago

adrianmsmith 4y ago

XFree86 in 1999 might not have been, but in 1994 when I went to university in the UK and was using Sun computers which were solely X servers to display programs running on the "main" shared computer in the corner of the room, X and all the associated software was all stable and worked fine.

pjmlp 4y ago
Solaris X Server wasn't the same.
vetinari 4y ago
At our uni, we used DEC and had vxt2000 terminals. It worked fine, just like wayland does today. But it wasn't rock stable, or even remotely secure.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Secure no, lol. But in those days telnet was still the norm. At my college they didn't even have xauth implemented which was loads of fun embarrassing other users with xv and some cool pictures :P Or xblast
  - vetinari 4y ago
    We didn't have xauth either; our fun was xeyes.

sprash 4y ago

X11 became really stable in the late 00s. And since the introduction of DRI3 it is at the same technological level of Wayland concerning the efficient buffer swap mechanism. X11 is however still miles ahead on the architectural level. Parts of the system like window managers or compositors can fail or be replaced at runtime without affecting running clients. Wayland lacks the appropriate standardized interfaces for that and there are not plans if not outright refusal to actually implement them.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
The choices of architecture seem to reflect different priorities, there are things that the Wayland architecture does better than X and vice versa, aren't there? Hard to say X11 is ahead architecturally if you pick features that Wayland may not consider important. I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architecture.
- vetinari 4y ago
  > I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architecture. For those interested in details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ
  - sprash 4y ago
    Most of the criticisms in this talk are solved with DRI3. Also this guy makes money with a consultant agency that mainly works on Wayland and indirectly profits from shitting on X11. This is not a neutral source.
    - vetinari 4y ago
      > Most of the criticisms in this talk are solved with DRI3 Not true. > Also this guy makes money with a consultant agency that mainly works an Wayland and indirectly profits from shitting on X11. Maybe his employer works on Wayland because there are no X11 jobs? > This is not a neutral source. He has experience with both, and he presents his arguments.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> Anyone who believes that XFree86 was stable in 1999 was apparently running a different XFree86 to me XFree86 on Linux wasn't very stable in 1999 (although it was more than usable, more than Wayland is today). X11 on IRIX in 1999 was pretty stable. Parent said X, not specifically XFree86. also something to consider: how many people were working on Xfree86 in 1999 and how many people are working on Wayland in 2023? What was the state of the technology, tools, documentation, availability of specs, reverse engineering etc. back then? AFAIK nobody was being paid by major tech companies (RH, just to name one) to work on free software in 1999.

bonzini 4y ago
Parts of X have always been free. Sun and DEC among others contributed to the development of X11.
lizknope 4y ago
XFree86 worked fine for me since 1994. I sometimes had problems when exiting a video game like Doom or Quake. SVGAlib would give problems but that wasn't X.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  Yep, my point was my experience in 1999 with XFree86 was with Linux, which was less stable than today per se, before that I only used Xsgi on SGI Workstations, which was proprietary and was already HW accelerated.
- LeFantome 4y ago
  It would help if you did not give easily verifiable facts to reveal the inaccuracy of your recall. You may have been using Doom in 1994 but you certainly were not using Quake. If this is an accurate memory, what year is it from?
  - lizknope 4y ago
    I installed Linux on my PC in September 1994 at the start of my sophomore year of college. I remember playing Doom during that school year from Sept 1994 to May 1995. The Quake Wiki says Qtest was released Feb 24, 1996 and I remember playing that the week it was released. I always felt that X11 on Linux was just as stable as X11 on SunOS, Solaris, Ultrix, HP-UX, IRIX, and AIX.

spacedcowboy 4y ago

Xfree86 is the commonly-used but bastard stepchild of X. X started on DEC, Sun, HP, SGI unix boxes, Linux came later. Linux is and was awesome, I still recall installing it using boot/root floppy disks, but X was around well before the '386 machine in the corner being used for CD creation was recognized as "Hey, this is actually useful"...