![X X](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicx.gif)
![GUI GUI](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/gui_64.png)
![Graphics Graphics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/graphics_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
X.org X11 Server Release 6.8 463
kormoc writes "The developers of X.org have just release the long-desired version 6.8.0. This release brings real translucency and allows one to set values on different windows. Also, nifty drop shadows as well as XDamage, an extention that limits redrawing of windows to only the areas that were damaged. The Xcomposite extention is still not stable, but it works well for some people. Why not give it a shot?"
Is it as good as Citrix? (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Re:Is it as good as Citrix? (Score:5, Insightful)
X may not perform as well, but at least it is designed properly - so you can share per application, or even per window, rather than having a goofy desktop in a window.
The best performing remote desktop solution for X is NX from nomachine. And yes, it does perform better than Citrix.
They have primarily pursued the goofy desktop in a window model as well. But there is nothing in their protocol mandating this : it is merely a limitation of the current client.
Best of all, NX is Free Software released under the GPL. Its a seperate process than the X server, so no legal viruses are going to eat up your nVidia driver.
NX sell a proprietary packaged up version. There is a project called FreeNX aiming to produce a fully Free set of NX tools ; however they appear to be closely allied to KDE, and aim to make it a feature for KDE to lord over Gnome. I hope I'm wrong.
Re:Is it as good as Citrix? (Score:2)
X may not perform as well, but at least it is designed properly - so you can share per application, or even per window, rather than having a goofy desktop in a window.
What Citrix also can do, at least the per application part (never tried per window). You are thinking of MS's RDP (AFAIK derived from Citrix, but another product).
Re:Is it as good as Citrix? (Score:5, Informative)
Fabian Franz: In fact, our FreeNX implementation is only the last piece of the mosaic. 99,9% comes from NoMachines's GPL/NX components, that we simply use unchanged in FreeNX.
[...}
Kurt Pfeifle: In the last 15 months, there have been servere misunderstandings concerning the whole NX software, which was considered to be "non-Free" by several Open Source developers, just because NoMachine also based its commercial products on top of it.
Without having a deeper look, rejecting NX as "practically unusable, if only the libraries are released under the GPL whereas the NoMachine NX Server remains proprietary". These biases simply overlooked, that a commandline tool was shipped by NoMachine almost from the beginning, including the source code which allowed everyone who was interested to build an completely working NX tunnel.
[...]
Fabian Franz: Our implemementation was intentionally kept simple. It's a simple Bash script...
You are surprised? Yeah, right: FreeNX Server is a Bash script, which glues together GPL library and executable components of NX to a working whole. All that stuff existed for 15 months untouched.
The fact that it is Bash means that every Linux developer can fix errors in our FreeNX server.
Kurt Pfeifle: I was merely a mentor for the FreeNX development and I do the documentation. But I can confirm: Fabian isn't lying...
FreeNX consists of less than 500 lines of Bash code (additionally to the NoMachine/NX source code parts, which are under the GPL).
Fabian did the implementation of the FreeNX server all by himself. First of all, Fabian is a true Bash wizard.
Secondly, this implementation should prove how "complete" the GPL components of the NX are already since 15 months.
So, i'd be guessing anyone from Gnome can code that up in a couple of days as well, there really isn't a whole lot of magic here.
"Single window" Citrix.. (Score:4, Informative)
You simply "publish" a single application specify that its 'seamless', and run it as a single window.. no 'citrix desktop' required..
We do it every day now, with hundreds of clients...
Application Publishing (Score:3, Informative)
This gives you the ability to launch any application from a secure web page, giving the appearance that its running on your local machine, with all the advantages of clustering of your applications on the 'big boxes' back in the server room. You also get a really low network profile, ICA/RDP is pretty network friendly. And the client is multiplatform
Before Nfuse, the admin would stick items in your start-menu for you
Re:Application Publishing (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good hack, but still a hack.
Gentoo! (Score:5, Funny)
(Take it as a joke, gentoo fans...)
Re:Gentoo! (Score:5, Informative)
When that is said, the latest release, the 904 drop, compiled in 21 minutes on my machine and has been running perfectly fine for a few days. Ofcourse, I'm running an AMD64 based machine. Your "joke" is actually true if you run a P1 160Mhz box, then it will take weeks to compile
Re:Gentoo! (Score:3, Informative)
I run Gentoo at home on an Athlon XP, dual Athlon MP, powerbook 17", and an AMD64 box, as well as at work on everything from old Pentium 2/400s to dual Opteron 246s. Xorg is now the default xserver on all those platforms. No special hoops required: 'emerge xorg-x11' is all that is required. With my Nvidia card I use nvidia's 64bit binary-only drivers, with the others, I use the free ATI drivers a
Re:Gentoo! (Score:5, Interesting)
Future enhancements to various window managers and applications should take advantage of these new X features. (xcompmgr and transset are clumsy utilities intended only for proof-of-concept.) For example, KDE's feature plan notes that true transparency has already been implemented in Konsole.
Runs shadows/transparency smoothly:
GeForce FX 5900
Athlon XP 2000+
--Colin
Re:first "emerge it" post (Score:5, Funny)
No, he's just waiting for Gentoo to compile X11.
"Why not give it a shot?" (Score:3, Funny)
Debian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Debian (Score:5, Informative)
Previous long lead times, according the Brandon (Debian's X release manager) were brokenness on some of the platforms Debian supports about which the developers in power didn't care, as well as reams of patches they wouldn't accept (like ones from ATI supporting "new" cards that weren't accepted after 6 months).
The whole point of FreeDesktop was to help everyone coordinate so that the process could be smoother. Most of the poeple on both sides were fed up with the politics and are working to make that the reality now.
Re:Debian (Score:4, Informative)
They have stated that they will not move to x.org until the modular version is available. Apparently it would take a lot of work to modify assumptions made in the apt-get respositories and they don't feel that the current release of x.org justifies the effort. Debian does acknowledge, however, that x.org is the future.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg004
I am making the assumption the x.org's X11R6.8 is still a part of the monolithic tree.
More information here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/06/m
Re:Debian (Score:2, Informative)
Changing stuff like this around (mainly, all the package renames, as well as a mass patch rediff) within Debian is actually really quite difficult, and very, very unlikely to be allowed to happen before sarge's release.
I'll leave it you to draw consequences. All I know is that news was spread Sarge will come around september this year (on debianplanet on aug.2), but then again: Debian releases when it is time. (from debian.org)
Anyw
composite rules! (Score:5, Informative)
In order to use the composite extension i had to add:
Section "Extensions" Option "Composite" "Enable" EndSection
and
Option "RenderAccel" "true"
to my nvidia driver section of my xorg.conf file
then install xcompmgr to turn it on since kwin doesn't utilise it yet.
Re:composite rules! (Score:5, Informative)
The first, and biggest reason (as far as I know) is that modern Linux widget toolkits are doing a lot more work than the Windows widget toolkit is.
For instance, full UTF-8/unicode rendering support combined with containment based layout, along with stock clipart using an alpha channel which is all double buffered simply requires more CPU time than a positional based toolkit which doesn't really support alpha-blended images (or indeed, stock artwork at all), flickers constantly and whos i18n support is patchy at best.
These are features which are useful and you don't want to lose. They make the GUI look great due to having professional artwork, smooth when resizing (internally), support users from all cultures and mean that resizable windows which react properly to font size changes are the norm not the exception like on Windows.
There are other issues. The focus of most Linux developers has not been optimization as of yet, as development effort has been concentrating on filling in the missing pieces (like HAL) and on catching up with the competition (this sort of X work). As an example I think Xrender and therefore font renderning had some serious bottlenecks until recently. There are a few notable exceptions. Soeren Sandmann for instance has been working on optimizing Linux graphics and GTK for some time now, and has been doing a great job.
Then there are scheduling/kernel issues. Con Kolivas mentioned some issues with respect to scheduling lately, I forget exactly what, but he seemed to think some change in the X server could allow the 2.6 scheduler to do a much better job. Also last time I checked the kernel did not expose vertical retrace intervals to the X server.
Finally there are issues within the toolkits themselves. GTK+ seems to really suck at rapidly responding to Expose events. I'm not sure why. However on COMPOSITE enabled machines this isn't an issue as everything is double-buffered at the server level anyway so time taken to react to Expose events isn't a factor. Just try the new distros if/when they come out with compositing enabled - they will feel a lot faster due to this change alone, assuming you have enough memory.
Re:X is slow? (Re:composite rules!) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:composite rules! (Score:3, Insightful)
It may depend upon quite what you mean.
Are you comparing a linux install you've done yourself with a Windows installation that came pre-installed? A lot of the fiddling and adjustments for Windows is done by the OEM.
When I have to install Windows it ususally takes longer than a linux install on the same box - both elapsed and my attention required. Windows needs about ten re
Gentoo fans (Score:5, Informative)
Great News, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about waiting until X.org announces it? Until then, it's just a directory of files on an FTP server.
Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
http://ruinaudio.com/Xorg-xcompmgr.png [ruinaudio.com]
http://jserv.sayya.org/misc/matchbox-gcin.png [sayya.org]
http://jserv.sayya.org/misc/matchbox-xcomposite4.
http://img3.exs.cx/img3/6458/screen_lynucs_175940
Translucency screenshots
http://freedesktop.org/~mallum/argb.png [freedesktop.org]
http://freedesktop.org/~krh/Screenshot.png [freedesktop.org]
Re:Screenshots (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, where did they get this kicker bar:
http://img38.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img38&image=screen_ lynucs_1759409500411796a9ba106_1.jpg [img38.exs.cx]
Also, will drop shadows and tranlucency work with any windows manager (i.e. XFCE4), or do I have to be running Gnome/KDE?
Re:Screenshots (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Screenshots (Score:3, Informative)
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/xorg-mplayer. j pg [centurytel.net]
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/metacity-compo sitor.png [centurytel.net]
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/skippy-xd.jpg [centurytel.net]
http://albin.abo.fi/~jfors/images/saya-20040830-1. png [albin.abo.fi]
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/ioslipstream/milk shot.jpg [arstechnica.com]
http://home.comcast.net/~amsilveira/screenshots/08 -27-04bg.jpg [comcast.net]
http://www.rpi.edu/~penwan/ss-20040829.png [rpi.edu]
http://home.pacbell.net/elomire/screenshot.png [pacbell.net]
http://thorin.battleaxe.net/~prototy [battleaxe.net]
how much of this is affecting X11 *the* protocol ? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much is XDAMAGE changing the original X11 protocol on wire ?. I have beed using something called WierdX [jcraft.com], which is deployed as a JNLP in our project's webserver . Do these new extensions change something fundamental or is it just not applicable for remote X11 ?.
Hmm.. I just wish X11 would use my Video card instead of hogging CPU for those purty gradients and translucent windows.
Re:how much of this is affecting X11 *the* protoco (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how much of this is affecting X11 *the* protoco (Score:5, Informative)
Having said that, the presence of the new ARGB visuals is known to confuse and break some programs. Worryingly, Mozilla+Flash and GTK 1.2 apps (like XMMS, VMware, etc) are amongst the things that have apparently broken.
To "unbreak" them you need to set a magic environment variable but as of yet there is no automatic blacklisting mechanism in place for userspace apps so .... you just have to be able to diagnose this breakage yourself.
Hence the fact that it's described as unstable.
Progress (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, so now the developers will start moving away from XFree86 in droves!
NO T JUST EYE CANDY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget that this improves much more then just adding real tranpsarencies!
X is a networking protocol not a gui!
Stuff like XDamage makes it easier to use over slower connections, for example.
The move to more and more extensions and reducing the monolythic nature of X is great. But it's slow and a evolutionary manner. But as you get more and more modular, stability will increase as will speed of developement. Each section can make changes and not worry about the impact on other parts of the X server.
Unlike the monolythic model of lumping everything into Xlibs and making it difficult to program for and adding new features while retiring obsolete ones.
Look forward to things like pure OpenGL enviroment! Now you have to have 2 drivers for every 1 video card... one for 2-d and one for 3-d.
Currently each application must deal with 3-dness independantly of each other. They must deal with the hardware independantly. Does Quake3 work over a network? No! But it can if they move everything to the X server. Each window then would automaticly be hardware accelerated, even if it was originally designed for the old way of doing things. Windows and items can be 3-d straight from the desktop.
That and dozens of other improvements are coming. This XDamage and Composite stuff is just laying the groundwork for more stuff, more progress.
Re:NO T JUST EYE CANDY!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Xorg roadmap (Score:4, Informative)
Looking at the Xorg release plan (closest I could find to a roadmap) at http://wiki.freedesktop.org/XOrg/XorgReleasePlan
Anyone aware?
Another thing that would be neat to see is integration of the GLX/DRM work on the S3 Savage line of chips. According to the DRI page there's some work being done on this, though it's not ready for prime time. My laptop has a Savage, and my Mom's computer uses the Via KM133, which has an imbedded Savage. Of course this is an area where perhaps I *should* be trying to help.
Re:Xorg roadmap (Score:3)
OP's (correct) point is that it is hard to install said clients without the server. In source, it is effectively impossible (though I think an "rm" on the f
Modularity and Stability (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep hearing this argument. However, I am not all that convinced that modularity will improve stability. After all, things tend to break around the edges. More modules means more edges, thus more opportunities to break.
Also, modules only work by virtue of well-defined interfaces. What if some of the interfaces turn out to be suboptimal? Retaining the interface can severely burden development and innovation. C
Re:NO T JUST EYE CANDY!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
The X protocol _does_ already stream OpenGL commands, so I get best of both worlds. A fast CPU and GPU.
Quake3 doesnt work, because it expects som OpenGL commands that X doesnt stream. When this is fixed in X (or libopengl.so), Quake3 will also work over network. I really doubt this will happen on purpose, and I therefore dont think we will see this functionality in the first 5 years.
But
NVIDIA (nv) driver enhancements (Score:5, Informative)
The nv driver for NVIDIA cards has been updated as follows:
* Support added to the nv driver for the GeForce FX 5700, which didn't work with XFree86 4.3.
* The driver now does a much better job of auto-detecting which connector of dual output cards the monitor is attached to, and this should reduce or eliminate the need for manual xorg.conf overrides.
* The 2D acceleration for TNT and GeForce has been completely rewritten and its performance should be substantially improved.
* TNT and GeForce cards have a new Xv PutImage adaptor which does scaled YUV bit blits.
http://freedesktop.org/~xorg/X11R6.7.0/doc/RELNOT
Re:NVIDIA (nv) driver enhancements (Score:3, Informative)
I've used the nv driver before, and the 2d performance wasn't that bad.
yum? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:yum? (Score:2, Informative)
But have they fixed... (Score:2)
Re:But have they fixed... (Score:2, Funny)
Having both both "nvidia" and "nv" in xorg.conf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Use "nvidia", but if that fails use "nv".
This feature would be worth a thousand dropshadow effects
Re:Having both both "nvidia" and "nv" in xorg.conf (Score:2, Informative)
That way you could switch between drivers without having to edit your xorg.conf file. That's been possible for a while.
you'd specify a default layout and a alternative layout (call it unaccl for example) and go like this:
startx
if that doesn't work then go:
startx -- -layout unaccl
there are examples on the web if you look around. I use one setup for my dual screen, but some games don't like that, so I have a second layout for just one screen.
Goodbye to XFree forever (Score:5, Insightful)
I am glad to see the amount of progress that is being made, and can only imagine what time will bring now that there is a way to actually contribute code to the X codebase again.
Kudos to KP, JG et al...
Re:Goodbye to XFree forever (Score:3, Interesting)
So these extensions didn't happen in the last 9 months. They have been brewing for a whil
Thank XFree for starting this (Score:3, Insightful)
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's http://xfree.org and there's http://x.org . What's the difference between both ? And about the version numbers ? What do they stand for ? I have X11R6, v. 4.3 or something like that installed on my computer, and now they announce X version 6.8.0 ?! What does the 6 mean ? The 11 ? The 6.8.0 ? (And where the hell does the X come from ?)
Thanks in advance !
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:2, Informative)
/Mikael
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:5, Informative)
The
I believe there was a prototype windowing system called W that preceeded X, but that's now ancient history (the first X Window System implementation to run was in the mid 1980s).
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone can implement an X server that adheres to the X11R6 protocol (and several UNIX vendors have; in the closed-source UNIX world Sun has their own implementation, and I bet all the others have too, although they may be based on the reference implementation - the old X Consortium X server). In the open source world, we have two implementations (which are very similar but now diverging - the XFree server and the X.Org server)
I don't know the historic reasons for why X was designed because I was only a small child in 1986 (I dare say somewhere on the Internet has the story as to why it was made in the way it was), but separating the client and the server like they have is extremely useful - the client doesn't care where the X server is or what the X server is. It means the client is well decoupled from the implementation of the X server - an X client running on HP/UX will display correctly on an X.Org X server running on Linux and you don't need to worry about DLL hell to make it all work - it just works. It's a very clean design and that's one of the reasons it's lasted so long.
As for the different implementations, X clients (i.e your programs) aren't linked to the X server or its header files. OpenWindows could be a radically different internal design with no header files in common with X.Org's server. What the clients link to is not the X server's header files - but XLib. XLib implements the client part of the deal, including the header files a C programmer would use. And XLib isn't linked to the X Server - it implements the X protocol (and that's why a Linux program written with Vendor A's xlib will work fine with Vendor B's X server running on some completely different architecture).
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:5, Informative)
The fundamental design of X is different than say, MS Windows. It is always network-based. We have to talk about a network protocol because that is how every X client program communicates, even locally. It's not just an optional feature. Its the entire design.
In MS Windows, you write a program that calls functions in a
The difference is that every application that runs on X communicates over a "network". Whether you are opening Firefox on your own desktop or running an application on a remote server thousands of miles away, the application you are running connects to your X server and sends drawing commands over the "network". There is never any direct link to drawing code like there is in Windows - all commands pass over the "network". Of course if the application is local, optimizations are in place to make this communication very fast and not pass through the OS's networking stack.
This lets you do a very neat thing: Every graphical X-based program you have on your linux desktop can be run on any other X server. I'm not talking about just the few special ones that support it or link some special library. I mean every single program. Since you have to use the network even if you are running locally, to run on a remote server you just tell it to use a different IP address for the display. This is true network computing. The display is just an IP address and a port/desktop number.
Download an X server for your MS Windows desktop. Then log in to a Sun/Linux/BSD/etc box and you can run most any X application. There are a very small number of exceptions (like a program that requires an extention that your X server does not have, I.E. OpenGL for Quake3), but those are very rare.
In many ways, X is the most conceptually advanced and "network aware" desktop display system, despite being designed in the 1980s. Unfortunately, it is also painfully old in a lot of ways and painfully lacking in other, non-networking areas. The concept is really great and it works pretty well, but it would be nice to have a crack at redesigning the protocol based on other advances in computing. But failing that, I'm really glad that X.org is pushing things along and modernizing. The XFree86.org team had basically stalled out in a quagmire of politics and a need to cling to the past.
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. It is pretty confusing, because you have to look at it in a different way than what you are used to it. So, it is pretty easy to get these roles reversed.
Think of it like this: The side which is initiating the conversation is the client (just like a webb
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:3, Informative)
Talking of games - the fundamental network design of X and the display program being the X server (essentially a daemon) means my Windows-using ET playing friends are envious of how I pla
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that Jim Gettys was one of the original designers of X from its inception; he's REALLY BIG on backward compatibility, and wants to still be able to proudly declare that 2004's X clients will still display properly on
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:5, Informative)
But why do we talk about a "protocol" ? Isn't X a program for displaying stuff ?
Nope. X is a protocol [x.org] for sending drawing requests. An X server is a program for displaying stuff.
I know we can use remote display on a network with X, but why isn't it only a feature? Why is X so focused on network terminology?
Some features are just minor tweaks to a basic design that could exclude them, other features are fundamental to the design. Network transparency is fundamental to the design of X. Even when you're not using a remote display, you're always using the X protocol, but over UNIX sockets rather than TCP sockets.
And how about differences between XFree.org and X.org ? And OpenWindows ? Are they three implementations of functions (same ".h"s) for displaying windows and drawing things?
They're all programs that receive drawing requests in X protocol messages and then do their best to fulfill the requests by drawing stuff on a display. XFree86 and X.org are mostly the same codebase as well, but that's not really relevant to their functions as X servers. There are lots of other X servers around like OpenWindows, Hummingbird EXceed, MetroLink, Xi Graphics, XVision, and bunches more. Pretty much any X client application can use any of these X servers, locally or remotely, to display windows and draw things. Some X servers have more features than others, some have better performance than others, some support more graphics cards than others, but all implement the same standard protocol so they're all to some degree interchangeable.
But you asked about differences, not similarities.
Those are some examples of X servers and how they differ from one another. There are many, many more, particularly in the commercial X server space, but they all work with all X clients, locally or remotely, and the common thread that binds them all together is the X protocol.
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:3, Informative)
The X Windowing System was originally an MIT project for unix (not linux specifically, it works with linux because linux carries on with the unix specification) that was made open source and turned into open source. X is just the name of the system, the 11 is the current version of the specification. 11 has been active since 1988.
The XFree86 organization managed the X-Window-System until version v4.3. Earlier this year, though
Re:Help ! I'm all mixed up with X version numbers. (Score:3, Informative)
X is the name of the windowing-system project invented at MIT in the 1980's. It was the successor to 'W' (stood for 'Window').
X.org, formerly the X Consortium, a bunch of industry-types (HP, Dell, DEC, IBM), tasked with developing X.
XFree86.org started as a port of the X code to PCs, and for much of the late 1990's and early 2000's, was the standard-bearer of X development.
Freedesktop.org is an umbrella project for *NIX GUI development.
At MIT, X went through several inco
What?! (Score:3, Funny)
"OpenGL is now supported for printing"
Anyone care to explain this bizarre concept? Can I now connect my graphics card directly to my printer?
Re:What?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, OpenGL can be set to output a set of "simple" drawing commands instead of drawing to a display context, that can be converted to pretty much any required output format like PostScript. So theoretically, it's easy to create high-resolution output from any OGL surface.
To All The "Drop Shadow Nay-Sayers" (Again) (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it needs to be made clear (no pun) yet again, that all this work is not just about drop shadows (they are just one thing you can do with it) or "useless" eye-candy (sometimes beautification is critical to the user). This work is about new options in enhancing usability and improving performance. These new extentions do far more than just add shadows and transparency (no, not translucency, that is something else).
Off-screen compositing allows new effects that can add emphasis to certain user interface elements. They allow for windows with arbitrary shapes that do not appear "jagged" and "rough". Better performance means we can create more fluid effects in windowing systems. For instance, users are much more comfortable with things that slide around or fade smoothly rather than just snapping into position. It allows the eye to keep track of what's changing. Tools like Exposé [apple.com] are now possible. Overall, there are more possibilities for open source user interface developers to add significantly more polish to the desktop without resorting to cheap hacks (such as the static transparency found in KDE, Eterm [eterm.org], and Aterm [sourceforge.net]).
And just to reinforce the classic uses of this: drop shadows really do add emphasis to the current focused window (I write this on an OSX box). Also, it can be really convenient to have window transparency in many cases (for example, when I have multiple Terminals open I can read a man page behind the console I'm currently typing in). Again, keep in mind that these features are not the goal but simply benefits of the new extentions.
The future of the F/OSS desktop is really looking up thanks to new technology like this. Eventually these things will be hardware accelerated (like Quartz Extreme [apple.com]) and then some really cool things will be possible.
So, in conclusion, don't knock or belittle the work that's going into X.org these days. In the future, most of you will appreciate them the same way you appreciate the flexibility you have now with choosing how to configure your window managers to your liking. No doubt a lot of people will take this stuff and produce a lot of crap, but we'll definitely see a lot of excellent work that will use it to improve the user experience.
REAL Transparency Screenshots (Score:5, Interesting)
Archaic build (Score:4, Interesting)
Building this beast is a trip down memory lane to the bad old days. Half way trough it bombs out on me because it can't find bison (now there's a program I haven't yet needed this century). So you install the program and continue on with "make World". What follows is the longest "clean" operation I've ever seen. Forget about just picking up compiling where it left. You're better of deleting the whole tree and unpacking the sources again, trust me, you'll save time.
Imake was a piece of shit when it was new and unsuprisingly it still holds true in 2004. However if it wasn't for X.org and Freedesktop I bet we'd still be compiling XFree86 5.0 with this pos a few years from now, at least someone at X.org is working on moving to the autotools for the next release.
Re:Archaic build (Score:3, Interesting)
But it IS brilliant.
If your environment files are set properly, you can install packages MUCH faster than using Auto*
The reason is that for EVERY package you install with the auto-tools, the SAME checks will be performed each time: Does the compiler support yadda yadda yadda and other tests that are already processed and stored in your local Imake configuration files.
The cool thing about Imake is that you are able to specify targets very simply, and i
A Guide to X Composite and its eye candy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Release notes (Score:4, Informative)
as in 6.8.0
Re:Release notes (Score:2)
Re:Wrong link- try this one (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Release notes (Score:2)
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
When a company charges for a product or service and it is defective, you try to return it, report the bug, and complain about the problem on discussion groups.
When a volunteer gives you a product for free and it is defective, you let the person know what's wrong, offer to retest it if they try to fix it, and if you have any time & talent to draw on, you offer to fix the problem and send in a patch. You NEVER, EVER complain. The worst you have the right to say is "I hope they take care of it in the next release".
Other than that, in response to your last sentence, on behalf of everyone whose ever given software away for free, STFU.
Re:Double standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Stabbing me with a knife isn't the same as having a table of them and saying I can have one if I choose.
Re:Double standards (Score:2)
This is kind of how I wouldn't expect the longhorn betas to have a 100% functional Avalon or WinFS, but I'd be annoyed if a later patc
Re:Double standards (Score:2, Informative)
No. X.Org release a piece of software that includes some experimental extensions which may not work correctly for all users (hence them being experimental). Also, these extensions are switched off by default.
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Informative)
What is it with drop shadows?
They're something that's easy to define, work well in MacOSX and Windows XP, and don't work very well in (some) current X11 servers. So obviously, you're going to get loads of graphics geeks rushing to fix it.
That said, the drop shadows in KDE on XFree86 look fine to me already.
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try opening up a menu sometime. While I agree that the XP shadows aren't as pretty, there are 3rd party applications that can create the "pretty" drop shadows. The layered window support in Windows since Windows 2000 allows per-pixel alpha to be specified for windows. With the proper graphics drivers, it's even hardware accelerated.
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all Eye-candy is as useless as it may seem
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:2)
2 eyes only help depth perception when the images they see are different; with a standard computer monitor, this isn't the case.
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's of zero use on a 2D screen! Close one eye. Spot the difference? Nope, me neither.
Second, without drop shadows, it is really easy to see which window has focus:
Your URL screwed up. Try this [sourceforge.net]. I disagree with the point that drop shadow interferes with focus. Right now, my focussed window has a *deeper* dropshadow than all the others, giving the illusion that it is actually 'closer', not to mention the outlining, title bar colouring, etc, etc
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:2)
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Insightful)
They look good.
That's it. No hidden meaning, no technical advantage, no uberl33th@x0r nonesense, nothing about skinning...just straightfowardly it looks good. No deeper explanation exists. Or needs to exist.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Informative)
I've five iTerms going right now (yeah, MacOS X). They're all the same colour yet I can easily see where they intersect *and* I can see the text below through the shadow. It's an efficiency thing ...
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:2)
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do people care so much about drop shadows? (Score:5, Informative)
Shadows and transparencies are just one of the things which you can do with all those toys, but the fact that the pieces behing them are there is what matters, using the hardware to do all this, etc. As a plus, shadows and transparencies are nice (I'd like to have them even in the light window managers at least). I don't know why people is so concerned about "shadows are not useful". This is a win-win situation, no drawbacks.
Re:not stable ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
>
> > Why not give it a shot?
Aaaiiieeeee! Top-posting makes its debut on Slashdot! [head explodes, intarweb collapses]
Re:Translucency (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm...
You know how I check my e-mail when I am on my laptop or away from home?
ssh my.desktop's.address evolution
Then it opens up on my laptop, just the same as if I was sitting in front of my computer.
You know I also have multiple X servers.
on my Debian machine:
ctrl-alt-F7 takes me to my Gnome desktop.
ctrl-alt-F8 takes me to my KDE desktop... running from my laptop.
ctrl-alt-F9 takes me to a Fluxbox running quake3 fullscreen on a server.
That's network transparency. I can run multiple X servers running from multiple machines. If I had a Redhat server to admin, I could open up the Redhat desktop on my Debian administration machine. All secure thru ssh tunnels, much better then VNC or Window's remote desktop.
No special software, no special software. Any and all Linux, Unix, or BSD machine running X windows can do this.
I can also have virtual desktops were I can move windows back and forth between them. You can get that with some add-on software in Windows, but it's nothing compared to what I can do.
Eventually I'll be able to do stuff like close out a X server session on one computer, move to another computer and re-open it. Thanks to improvements in X.org.
Stuff like XDamage is going to make this more efficient network-wise, and new tunneling technology will replace the generic tunnelling with OpenSSH with something more geared specificly towards X windows. Newer compression technics and data types will make it even faster ontop of that.
You Windows guys don't know what your missing by not using a OS that has REAL multiuser support (having sudo and actually having it MORE conveinent to be a user rather then logged in as administrator.) with powerfull network technology, in a stable and SECURE enviroment.
X Windows rocks. XFree86 and politics held it back, but now with X.org it is beginning to have the same rate of developement that the rest of Free software enjoys.
Fedora and OpenBSD have new releases every 6 months. Using stuff like apt-get and ports it's EASY and CONVIENENT to keep up to date and patched. All the software gets up to date, not just the core system like in MS.
How often do you Windows guys get to play around with new stuff? Every 6 years, now?
Re:Translucency (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows alpha support is basically "Make this window sorta transparent". The Windows desktop isn't actually composited: only when a translucent window is over another wi
Re:Translucency (Score:3, Informative)
Simple, really.
Re:Screw the eye candy, where is the integration? (Score:5, Informative)
What's wrong with ssh (besides the occasional "oops, wrong machine" moments
"When will we see some innovation instead of eye candy?"
In case you missed the point, this is about innovation, eye candy is just a nice side-effect. For example, XDamage improves X over slower network connections.
"The hooks for modular gui plugins should be there"
You mean something like the extensions for X?
"Why not work on something to compete against microsofts new gui/api interffaces based upon 3d rendering instead of pixel rendering? why not kill 2d before the competition and work on an graphical interface that is competitive instead of intriguing."
Well, it would be time to make up your mind on eye-candy.
3D desktops so far were nothing but neat eye-candy, from a usability point of view they have added nothing (one can argue that in fact they are worse than 2D ones). But anyway, I had the impression that the people of X.org are working on something like that.
If you want something to change, help them - but first, please, get your facts right, because spewing uninformed bullshit on slashdot does not help anyone.
Re:Screw the eye candy, where is the integration? (Score:5, Informative)
When can we see a trusted computing environment?
SELinux integration with the X server (SE-X) to allow you to lock applications down tighter is being worked on in a branch of Xorg CVS. It's not done yet AFAIK. The idea here is that you can take the features of "trusted" military-strength windowing systems where it's possible to have secure windows such that you cannot screenshot them, other apps cannot send events to them and so on.
When will we see fully improved network/remote access?
This statement is meaningless but NX compression is clearly the way forward here.
When will we see some innovation instead of eye candy?
Again, totally useless statement. Nowhere do you define "innovation" or even show that it's a good thing (hint: I'll take an efficient and usable desktop over and pointlessly innovative one any day).
The hooks for modular gui plugins should be there - just as with any gui. OS/2 had the object based interface, windows has the pretty indepth theme integration and OSX has the PDF display..
Again a meaningless statement. There are actually some pretty convincing arguments out there that DPDF/DPS type systems are the wrong way to implement a graphics system, and that XRENDER type trapezoid rendering is the right way. I suggest you investigate first.
Windows XP has themes - great. You realise that Linux has pioneered the way when it comes to theming? It was the first to have a totally themable desktop (I think this is true even if you include gross hacks like WindowBlinds), still the only OS to have systematic icon theming, the only one I know of that has mouse cursor theming etc.
Why not work on something to compete against microsofts new gui/api interffaces based upon 3d rendering instead of pixel rendering?
I think you've misunderstood what Avalon is. It's not about 3D GUIs, it may include using 3D acceleration to speed up rendering on machines that support it but this doesn't affect the APIs.
Quick release cycles don't do anything for corporate adoption. Give us the "killer app" - in this case a desktop/windowing system that delivers everything we seem to bash in other systems as insecure or proprietary.
I don't know of any other open, standardised windowing system with the security features X has. If you can show me one, I'd be interested.
Re:Screw the eye candy, where is the integration? (Score:3, Insightful)
there was in issue around ownership of tmp file fixed in this release, and integration with selinux should be not far behind.
When will we see some innovation instead of eye candy? Why does something have to be invented on OSX or Windows instead of pioneered on linux?
do you have any idea how this stuff was done? completely network transparent window rendering and compositing? windows and ma
Re:Screw the eye candy, where is the integration? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because for the most part, that is not, and will probably never be, the way Linux development has worked. UNIX, yes, but Linux, traditionally not.
Now, before you put gasoline underwear on me and get ready to strike a match, hear me out. For the most part, Linux has been an environment where the best ideas from surrounding computing environments have been taken
Re:OT: So what happened/will happen to XFree86? (Score:3, Interesting)
The XFree86 website [xfree86.org] doesn't really reflect these issues either; if they are still working, nobody cares.
There is still activity on the mailing list [mail-archive.com]