XFree86 Politics 452
Pivot writes "Keith Packard wants to fork the XFree86 effort. 'It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a member of the XFree86 Core Team.' The XFree86 team is trying to become more open, to combat the fork. Keith is a capable developer, having worked on FontConfig, Xft, the X render extension etc. Meanwhile, All is not good in how XFree86 drivers are being developed. Anyone remember the GGI initiative a few years back, and the uproar it caused?"
Mike's diary entry (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather not see a fork of XFree86, but if they can't solve their problems quickly then they may find their hand forced by a fork. That won't be pretty.
God *DAMN* it (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'm going to cry. Keith has done the most amazing stuff -- Xft, the modern font architecture -- all the really good features that I've played with recently. If he splits off, XFree86 is going to take a very serious hit.
Please, please, *PLEASE* try to work this out with Keith, XFree core. If you need to maintain more stability, think about a more unstable devel versions, or even a second "really unstable" devel tree that patches can at least enter the tree. Anything, just don't end up hating each other and refusing to share your code with each other.
Either side of such a fork would have a much weaker team. We need XFree86 so much right now, with 3d becoming important to mainstream Linux users. I appreciate all that the XFree folks have done, and asking for more seems ungrateful -- but please try to work it out without ultimatums. *Please*. The mplayer folks hang together, even though A'rpi's abrasive, because he's a really great coder, and everyone would be worse off if he wasn't involved.
Man. I feel almost as bad as when Bungie was purchased by Microsoft. The world *needs* Keith and XFree core being friends, not adversaries.
This and a war in Iraq, and it isn't even 1:00 yet. What a awful day.
Re:God *DAMN* it (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone asked "even X protocol can be changed ;)?". David (the XFree86 Head) replied "If such a change turns out to be good, then yes".
More, the core team showed itself to be flexible and proved it can be convinced -- they were against bugzilla (which has been set up recently) etc. There is will...
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:2)
Ummm, have these guys n
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and BTW from http://www.xfree86.org/developer.html
I don't know if Mike's quote from that page is old or just innaccurate.
It sounds like XFree could use some new blood. It's too bad there aren't just more active developers as it would help to steer it in the right direction. The Linux kernel is a good example of a piece of software which is ultimately controlled by Linus' inner circle, but which is really driven by the hundreds (thousands?) of other people who hack on it and release their own trees, etc. Maybe writing GUI code is boring by comparison, or something.
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:5, Interesting)
But from the user's point of view, the problems are quite similar. For example, you still can't get a 2.4 Linux kernel with decent ACPI support, reasonably complete FireWire support, or lots of other features that have been out individually for months or years. And the 2.5 kernels do not even come close to compiling cleanly in most configurations (at least the half dozen I have tried).
Both the Linux kernel and XFree86 suffer from similar problems: they are very well-written and well-tuned C programs, but there is only so much magic even the best C wizard using the best tools can work on huge C source trees.
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm honestly not up to speed on the kernel support for ACPI or FireWire. But lets face it, there are what now, a billion computers out there? And how many of them have ACPI or FireWire? Not the majority, thats for certain.
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:2)
The majority also lack SCSI, video capture, and probably USB, as well. Yet, the 2.4 kernel supports all of these. What was your point again?
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there is: the hooks just aren't in the kernel. And that's the point: the kernel is not designed as a set of software components that people can assemble into a system, it's a monolithic piece of software that often needs to be patched in order to support some new piece of hardware or functionality.
And how many of them have ACPI or FireWire?
Most of the new ones have ACPI. In fact, my two year old desktop has ACPI. I suspect the majority of new laptops being shipped can't be suspended under Linux, even though the code has been donated by Intel a long time ago and works.
Linux is so much more stable than Windows because Linus is so picky and doesn't just cobble stuff into the kernel before it's ready.
This isn't about Windows vs. Linux. The Windows kernel seems to suffer from the same problem, although for Windows, they at least have figured out how to make third party drivers work a bit better. But just because everybody suffers doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.
Linus is doing a great job at what he is doing. But there is only so much any group of developers can do with a software system that is millions of lines of code and for which new components are often distributed as patches. We will have to move to a different architecture at some point; the only question is when and how.
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh*
A documented and stable binary interface for drivers in the Linux kernel would be good for many reasons. The standard "reason" given by the kernel developers why there isn't one a
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL says you can play with the software as long as you're willing to give back your changes in the same terms. Binary drivers don't want to play by those rules so they have to cope with the rules Linus set for them. As for money making companies using Linux, well, they're playing by the same rules and providing the code back. The binary driver companies (money making companies
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Insightful)
They get no sympathy from me, especially the ones (NVidia) that won't provide programming information for the hardware they sell us
nVIDIA can't disclose hardware details if it infringes someone else's IP or license or whatever. Or if it trashes a hardware patent they rely on (let's not red-herring on software patents)
nVIDIA support Linux within the constraints of their business. Those drivers work well for me on many machines I've been involved with. So I can't hack the source code for fun, well boo h
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:4, Insightful)
g4dget is correct. That is also the reason why Linux is faster than Windows- you are running one program rather than several that hook into each other. But what Windows loses in speed it makes up for in flexibility. Its a trade off, and each made their decision. Since Unix (and hence Linux) is essentially a server OS, graphics display are not its core concern- networking performance is.
The Windows kernel seems to suffer from the same problem, although for Windows, they at least have figured out how to make third party drivers work a bit better.
Well, for the most part. You still get flaky implimentation. For example, until its influx of 3dfx people, ATI really sucked ass with both hardware and software (and drivers). Now they unified their drivers like nVidia, and are getting some pretty stable performance: they still arent near stability of nVidia tho- nVidia cards are like a tank.
But aside from all that stuff, there are some good some bad with other graphics drivers, especially the farther down the food chain you go. But thats the whole thing- it IS possible to make rock solid third party drivers for Windows, its just some companies generally dont have people skilled enough to do so, or else the product itself is unstable.
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Insightful)
I was wondering the same thing. Are XFree86 drivers modular? If not, why not? And if not, then XFree86 is severely broken and badly needs to be redesigned to be modular.
If so, why does ATI wait for the core XFree86 team to (months and months later) even look at the possibility of including its drivers?
I'm not familiar with XFree86's internals, but my guess is the former (XFree's internal architecturer is broken). If it were the latter, then this wh
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:3, Insightful)
Some would say that this goes against the spirit that XFree86 is being developed under, and would lead to the project eventually falling into becoming fairly proprietary.
I am not saying this is good or bad, but there's a political agenda behind the licensing tactic of many Open Source projects. That's how it works.
Re:Mike's diary entry (Score:2)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, we'll only know if it's a good thing if we read the facts, and think it through. So that's not about to happen :)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. (That sounded a bit 'me too'. Eek). However this sounds a little like the FSF Emacs/Lucid Emacs fork [xemacs.org].
In that case, and this (Mike Harris sounds like a reasonable guy so I'll take his word on this) the reasons for the split were issues with how the project was managed - it wasn't a petty 'you won't accept my ideas so I'm off', t
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
My experience with code forks is that it is often a failure on the forked part. Rarely, the forked project may become more successful than the original project. Most probably, this will increase the work on both projects if they want to be kept in sync.
Before rejoicing about the fork, think of it that way: assume the fork proceeds, and we have a new Xfree86-bis project. As an end-user, which one will you want to run? Do you think forking the project will bring you more freedom of choice, more quality, more robustness, more timely updates?
Just because you CAN fork an open source project does not mean it is a good idea. The fact that it's so easy to proceed with the idea is nothing. The hardest part is managing the "after-fork".
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Perhaps, but often there is a good reason for a fork. Linux is playing around with several schedulers (or they were 6 months ago), as is freeBSD. Part of the reason is there are different ways to do it, and depending on what your goals are you may want to run different ones. I might pay to fork Linux just so you can choose your scheduler. (Of course if the scheduler is just a drop in replacement you can choose at compile time, but if one schdeuler needs other code changes to really work good then compi
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Forks are useful and often necessary. Phoenix and whatever-they're-calling Chimera this week are necessary Mozilla forks. Mozilla is more or less intended to be a test platform, while Netscape, Phoenix and Chimera are designed to be useable applications. Each of these forks are intended to serve a different purpose. Forking the refinement of the UI into different projects allows the main Mozilla trunk to focus on Gecko and other underlying functionality while not neglecting the need entirely for a refined UI.
Another case of different audiences: GNU Emacs vs. XEmacs. XEmacs is designed to be a polished version of Emacs that works well for people who want a nice professional development environment on *nix, while GNU Emacs is geared at being the consumate hacker's editor.
Or the embedded Linux forks. Actually, there are about a bazillion different Linux kernel forks. Everyone has their own kernel...eventually they re-sync with Linus' kernel, but each of these separate kernels are, again, geared at different audiences.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Um, no.
From http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/:
If it walks like a fork, talks like a fork...
They are under the Mozilla project, but they are not part of the main trunk...hence they are "forked" off...
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Phoenix is in many ways a fork.
It uses the gecko renderer and XUL but it also removes a lot of the mozilla code. There used to be a comment on their site about how many lines of code they'd changed or removed (around 300,000 i seem to recall, but I could be wrong).
For example, some of the differences are: JUST a web browser, no IRC, no newsgroups, no e-mail. Different side bar, none of this features-integrated-into-the-sidebar stuff. Slightly cleaner interface (IMO) and slightly faster to run since its missing a lot of mozilla bloat.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many, many forks of the Linux kernel. No, none of them are as popular as Linus' kernel, however it is in these other trees that most of the development of the kernel takes place, and the good changes get accepted back into Linus' tree. The history of the Linux kernel is a twisted map of intertwining forks. The fact that none of the forks has been more successful than Linus' is completely irrelevant. Without all those other forks the kernel wouldn't be where it is today.
Perhaps we have different ideas about what exactly qualifies a "fork".
Re:So what? (Score:2, Informative)
In the sense of being Just Another Fork it's not all that interesting, but it happens to be one that's relevant to just about anyone who runs an app that's dependent on a X Window system of some kind.
Just about every graphical app on an *ix system depends on that. OSX's Quartz is a notable exception.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right that being evasive about the reasons you want to fork is not healthy.
However, that does not diminish that forks are sometimes a good idea.
It gets back to your comment
because best becomes highly subjective for future features that have not been implemented.
One developer might complain that code cleanliness will suffer; another might sacrifice complexity for low memory footprint or performance under conditions that may or
Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
XFree86 is an old project, based on even old roots so its not suprising its a bit of a dinosaur at times - its taken a very long time to get bugzilla.
The response to Keith is horribly netbsd'ish though, this "you are with us or against us" thing (Actually its terribly George Bush right now). I suspect in the same situation Linus would merely wish the person "good luck" 8)
Alan
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that AFAICS *all* the new facilities in recent XFree86 versions have come from Keith would suggest that the problem lies with the way the project works rather than with Keith.
Rich.
Positive Side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Positive Side? (Score:3, Interesting)
Keith is well placed for a fork... Examples:
1. Developed numerous core extensions (XRender, XCursor, many many others)
2. He's developed on X for at least 15 years??, and is one of the few people to understand a good part of it.
3. He works with Jim Gettys (Designer of X) at HP.
4. XWindows needs to go towards a real rendering model server wide. People are willing and rea
Wasn't he working on the Transparency engine? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually to be honest, I would like the transparency server but more importantly things like the Mach64 driver need to be integrated so I can get XVideo and DRI w/o having to download binaries. The stuff in question has not been updated in ages and I am concerned that the 4.3 release will go unnoticed and I'll be stuck w/o dri.
Re:Wasn't he working on the Transparency engine? (Score:2)
Rich.
XFree86 (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, forks are dangerous and should only be done by talented contributing people with people skills. Keith Packard is a good coder, I hope he's as good with politics.
Re:XFree86 (Score:3, Funny)
Agreed. Perhaps they should look at a spork [sonic.net] of some kind?
Re:XFree86 (Score:3, Funny)
Already begun (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Found
The requested URL
Apache/1.3.26 Server at www.xfree86.org Port 80
He better find a new home for his homepage methinks!
Re:Already begun (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Already begun (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Already begun (Score:2, Informative)
More open? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the thing is
He broke the contract. (Score:5, Funny)
Not only have you decided to form a competetive product, but you're also trying to steal our people away. We can't have this nonsense at our company.
This organization has to protect it's financial interests. We can't have competition from within. We don't want you to take anything away from our premere product.
You're fired. You'll hear from our lawyers in regards to the anti-compete clause that you agreed to.
OK (Score:2)
If this was a "to-be-merged fork" like the sort you always see at the DRI project, I'd be much more sanguine about this. The article makes it sound like it's a full-blown "screw you" fork.
-Erwos
Re:OK (Score:3, Insightful)
That is almost certainly why he has been "privatly" talking to people about a possible fork. He isn't stupid, and there is no way you could fork a project like XFree86 without both internal and public backing of some sort.
Now that XFree86 Core has got its panties in a bunch and thrown Keith out, it has probably made the posibility of a fork even more likely. After all, Keithe has been one of the main drivers behing recent XFree86 development, he is passio
the windowing standard is X11, not XFree86 (Score:2)
Presumably, after a fork, both XFree86 and Keith's X11 implementation will continue speaking the X11 protocol, and both will support common extensions. Keith may add more experimental extensions, but that shouldn't be a problem for anyone.
GGI going into FreeBSD (Score:2)
Just so you know KGI is the Kernel Graphics Interface project that was to be the underlying layer of GGI in Linux.
I used to mess around with this back when Linus was saying how much it was a bad idea. The neat thing about ggi applications is if you compile them once they will run within X as well as at the console without a recompile. At least that used to be a goal... Admittedly I stopped following this project a long time ago but I am glad that it appears to be moving forward else
The problem of rewriting/forking XFree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem of rewriting/forking XFree (Score:2)
I do think we need something to replace X, but that shouldn't be some more or less randomly picked graphics library. That's a step backward: You loose network transparency, which is a really cool feature and will become even cooler with the rise of mobile devices. You don't loose m
A vibrant developer comminuty... (Score:5, Insightful)
No wonder people are getting frustrated. Perhaps a fork is in the best interests of the XFree86 project.
I'd be interested to hear Keith's side of the story, especially his concerns. If they're correct, though, and he's only willing to discuss them with a handpicked developer community, I doubt we'll hear anything useful.
lost of links to lots of places. (Score:2)
The whole project seems to take a black box approach, or at least that's my view from XFree86.org
If I take a look at what's in the next release I get Release Plans [xfree86.org]
"XFree86 4.x
Our current release is the 4.3.0 release, which was released on 27 February 2003.
A current snapshot of the 4.x code can be checked out of our public CVS repository."
And what's in 4.x? looks like nobody knows.
Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
The message posted by "Moulinneuf" actually suggests to me that Keith probably is well-justified in doing this. It makes sense to kick people off an open source project if they don't contribute or do technically the wrong thing, but that's clearly not the case with Keith. OTOH, if a project member wants to test the waters for a fork privately, so what? Moulinneuf's message sounds like Keith was part of the secret service and spying for the enemy. Sounds like wounded pride and politics to me.
Another question one might want to ask, though, is whether it isn't worth starting an X11 server from scratch. X11 isn't as complicated as the XFree86 server makes it appear to be. And the priorities have shifted, too: stuff that used to be really important in X11 could perhaps now be shifted to simple generic implementations.
Any idea of changes planned? (Score:2)
What changes are in store? The links to his "talks" are dead.
Karma to burn (Score:2)
"Whiny fuckin' maggots"
One only has to examine the Linux distro home page to see over *70* forks of the original Linux idea.
Fork it, fine, but quit being a bitchy "snadbox is mine" baby, this goes for both the team AND the forker.
Moderate this not as a troll, but as flamebait. I'm tired of reading articles like this where one guy with a big ego is torqued off at the rest of the big ego teams and things like this happen.
It's a cult of personality and
Transparency Server (Score:2, Interesting)
Such is the way of open source. Fork, I say! I only hope that Keith's concerns are truly pragmatic and related to the software, rather than ego.
A fork would be *bad* (Score:2, Interesting)
A forked tree would basically kill X as a _standard_ platform. If I write an X app, do I write it for XFree86 or XFree-KiethP? If I'm putting a distribution together, do I package XFree86 or XFree-KiethP? I'm ATI and I want to contribute to driver development. Do I support XFree96 or XFree-KiethP. I'm trying to port an app written for XFree-KiethP to Solaris. What now??
X has survived for this long because it is a _standard_ platform. You can write an X application anywhere and reasonably expect it t
Re:A fork would be *bad* (Score:5, Informative)
Its like arguing that you can't write a tcp/ip application if NetBSD and OpenBSD forked. The truth is that since both speak the same protocol it doesn't matter at all.
Re:A fork would be *bad* (Score:4, Interesting)
Its just X is so good at this people don't notice 8)
Re:A fork would be *bad* (Score:2)
Further to that, XFree86 is NOT X. X is a standard. As long as any forks adhere to the X standards, and implement the same extensions XFree86 does, there should be no problems whatsoever.
As far as writing separate patches for separate package versions is concerned, I don't think this'll be a problem. X seems sufficiently modular that a few driver changes here and there shouldn't have any effect on interoperability.
With any
Re:A fork would be *bad* (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that I can run every Linux app imaginable using a completely non-XFree86 X11 server on Windows (XWin-Pro, Xceed), I'd have to disagree with you there. I'm sure the KDE team didn't "write KDE for" XWin-Pro, but it works fine. Also, there are non-XFree86 X servers for Linux that work great, one of which I can't remember the name (it's a commercial server).
X11 is the
Re:A fork would be *bad* (Score:3, Insightful)
But as the development in XFree is rather slow, and at least my impression is that all feature-improvements in the last 2 years have been partially or completely done by KeithP, I doubt that anyone would still bother to use XFree in another 2 years...
It's big, it's old, and we're stuck with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's big, it's old, and we're stuck with it (Score:5, Interesting)
Also a lot of the rest of the XFree binary package set is fonts, weird prehistoric applications (wtf uses xsetpointer, xkbbell,
xstdcmap...) and ancient unused (but important for back compatibility libraries) like Xaw.
Good fork (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibility of a fork is a necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole strength of the open source concept is that the many hands in a community can make complex problems shallow. If forks can't happen, then a monopoly on the supply of software develops. However, within there already seems a situation in which the threat of a fork is forcing a previously partially closed community to consider how to open up more.
Don't forget that forks are considered by Linus to be essential elements of a successful project. They allow the opportunity for alternative approaches to be tried, and if successful to be adopted. The trick in the kernel is that Linus recognises this and is prepared to merge again when a fork shows its worth
This hasn't worked through yet - it may well be that the threat that it might happen allows the situation to improve such that the natural progression is to bring the two sides together again. This is an opportunity not a threat and we should encourage it
Maybe they should try a style more like FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
There are established rules [freebsd.org] to how to be a committer.
Most important are the perks [freebsd.org]!
On network transparency... (Score:4, Interesting)
As the Windows and Mac OS GUIs increase in sophistication, we have seen that they have been able to add in "network transparency" to an extent (ok more like "remote viewing") with things like VNC, and other implementations, that exist entirely seperate from the GUI proper - they basically implement a very very basic bitmap-copying protocol.
Is there a case where THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT? Is it really that much of a win to burden the entire architecture with a feature that in its common use can be implemented completely seperately and still solve 90% of the problem?
I'm serious here, can some a heavy/long-time user of X illustrate cases where they NEED network transparency built in (besides that it is "elegant" technically)? The only thing I can think of is having remote windows "integrate" with your local X server - but is this a COMMON CASE at all? I would imagine the common case to be temporarily using remote apps (potentially on an entirely seperate desktop instance) in which case it doesn't matter (or is in fact beneficial) that they are visually distinct, OR using an ENTIRE remote desktop (KDE, Gnome, etc.) in which case ALL your apps will be "integrated" visually since they will all be running on the remote machine.
In what circumstances would you WANT disparate remote applications, from potentially multiple remote machines, integrating invisibly in your current desktop ?(I for one would think this would be hell of a confusing! "Shit did I just 'rm' that file on my local machine, or the server!??") What is the benefit here? What is the cost?
Re:On network transparency... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not to mention the fact that since nobody can (or will) decide on window managers or toolkits, apps currently look different and are non-integrated ANYWAY, regardless of whether you integrate the network transparency at the X level.
Also, what does it say that KDE has rebuilt standalone remote-viewing functionality in the face of built-in X network transparency?
Re:On network transparency... (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally am a regul
Re:On network transparency... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, it's also easier to write a note with a pencil on a piece of paper than it is to log into a computer, log into a discussion site, and type the note in. There are times when each is the more appropriate choice, depending on the task at hand.
Re:On network transparency... (Score:4, Insightful)
Several cases. Personally, I use the network transparency of X daily, to use GUI apps that are being run on more than one computer *without* disturbing the desktop on said computers (and in fact, one of them isn't even running its own X server). I find this feature very useful, and something VNC and its ilk does not replace.
Also, X over a network is quite a bit faster than VNC.
Re:On network transparency... (Score:3, Interesting)
VNC/RDP both export the whole desktop. Your remote view of the computer is a window containing the entire remote desktop; start bar, explorer, window manager, everything. X11 remotely views a single application. You have a single desktop which integrates applications from multiple sources.
If yo
Re:On network transparency... (Score:3, Interesting)
What we need is more radical than a fork of XFree (Score:3, Insightful)
ground up, with compatability libs to allow normal, window-bound
X11 apps to work on it. We'd lose existing "special" apps (window
managers, screensavers, panels,
what needs to be done to allow for future improvements.
Don't get me wrong, I mostly like XFree... but the design is
(gradually) reaching the end of its useful lifespan. There are a
number of improvements I'd like to see that are fairly impractical
for a design based on X11. Resizing windows is nice, but I also
want to be able to scale them. (This implies that bitmapped fonts
should die, among other things.) Being able to grab a bitmap of
the desktop and use it as a window background is one thing, but
I really want a full alpha channel for every window (controlled
by the application for each widget in the window, or for each
pixel in an image canvas widget) plus an overall opacity setting
(controlled by the user) for the whole window. And so on.
Re:You have the right idea (Score:5, Informative)
I fully agree that Xlib compatibility is very important, but that can't be the driving factor in a project that wants to replace X. Such an evolutionary approach is far better handled by extending X than by writting an replacement IMHO.
Several responses mention Fresco. However I feel that any attempt to put "toolkit" into the server is a bad idea, and will be rejected.
What makes you say it is a bad idea? We are not fixing the look nor feel of any object created, we just define a set of very generic interfaces to request certain kinds of objects (Buttons, lines, text,
First of all it makes it absolutely impossible to write such an emulation layer.
That's wrong.
Also despite claims to the contrary, it actually *increases* the amount of communication Why? Because widgets quickly grow complicated with many many cofiguration options and it gets COMPLICATED.
I absolutly fail to see your point.
You create a tree of graphic-objects that describe the look and feel of your application once. Afterwards there is NO communication between client and server anymore till the applciation updates its look or the user causes a change in the client's state. Usually not even events leave the server!
We tried remote-displaying our demo. Via Fresco the communication needed 1.9kBit/s (alive pings) after an initial burst to create all the necessary graphics, even while moving/resizing/scaling/... the windows. Doing the same using VNC to export the same demo at the same color depth and using the same screen-size up to 800kBit/s were used when doing those operations. We allow that factor of ~400 for unforseen complications;-)
You should further notice that individual graphics do not get complicated. Complex things are build up out of a couple of simpler graphics. This is *very* different from how both GTK and QT work and way more easy once you get used to thinking in terms of small building blocks.
Also Fresco lacks any attempt at the Xlib emulation library, so it is not going to be a viable replacement.
Yes, we are incompatible for now. Nobody is working on an Xlib emulation layer. It can be added and it will be added once Fresco becomes stable enough to hold its own. Nobody can use Fresco for serious work yet, so nobody will miss X compatibility. We'd still have to keep updating the code to keep in sync with the rest of Fresco, thus draining resources that can be put to far better use elsewhere, Doing such an emulation layer now would do more harm than good.
This is stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Keith has come by PSU (I mean Portland State, not Penn.) several times to lecture in Bart Massey's AI classes. I haven't met him, but I do know some of the people involved in some of this "new X stuff." My girlfriend even had lunch with him once. Several of the people I work with were involved in pre-XFree86 X development and have nothing but good things to say about him.
My take on this is, Keith has some pretty radical ideas for changing X. At least, radical in the eyes of the XFree86 "core team." I've seen him on the lists defending his opinions, and he does so maturely and patiently, even when people don't agree with him. I think he's just given up trying to convince the XFree86 team, but he doesn't see that as any reason to abandon his development. Why shouldn't he make a fork if that's what he wants? If XFree86 didn't want this, they should have never made the source open.
For this perceived treachery, the core team whines and boots him out. Pretty stupid considering he was making considerable headway with Xrender, the only major advance in the basic graphical functionality of X in many years (excluding hardware acceleration).
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if Keith is successful in what he's doing, there will be plenty of people running his stuff in the future, and XFree86 might become much less relevant.
Happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)
About three years ago I was a happy user of XFree86 3.3.6; then XFree86 4.0 was released and my Matrox Mystique stopped working. After carefully determining that the cause was almost certainly a bug in the XFree86 4.0 driver, I decided to send a bug report to XFree86. I read all the relevant instructions on the web site, collected the required data, and sent a polite and detailed bug report to the appropriate mailing lists.
After some weeks I had received no answer. Bad luck, I thought, so I rechecked I had done everything as indicated in the XFree86 site and reposted my bug report. Zero feedback again. I sent about eight bug reports along three months more or less, and got no answer from any XFree86 developer.
I did get mails from some people with the same problem as me, wanting to know if I had found the solution. I had tried to debug the driver myself, but I don't really had the necessary skills and experience, not to talk about the technical specifications. So there was nothing users who suffered this problem could do; we had to stay with 3.3.6.
Finally, I got some explanation from the last bug report I sent. It was from another user who was frustrated with the way XFree86 was developed. He explained that the public mailing lists I had sent my bug reports to (as I was supposed to do) were only occasionaly browsed by a couple XFree86 developers. Real communication among developers happened in private, closed mailing lists that only people with CVS access could post to or even read.
So the problem went unfixed. Some months later I upgraded my computer and forgot about this. Probably, to this day, owners of Matrox Mystiques with a certain chipset can't use XFree86 4.0.x, and I bet the maintainers of the mga driver don't even know. I couldn't tell them.
Keithp locked out... (Score:5, Informative)
Keith Packard has been denied commit access to the XFree86 CVS for several months now. (BTW, he was responsible for making the repository publically accessible---he had a long struggle with certain XFree86 Core Team members to let him do it.) This is obviously an insane situation: he has been the principal developer (outside of 3D and drivers, although he's worked on the latter a bit) for some time now. IMHO the situation is somewhat like locking Linus out of Bitkeeper: of course he would make alternate arrangements!
In short, this is a fork in name only: the major players in the distro business have committed to work with Keith, and this is the clear successor for realistic X development. Note that this is the third such event in the history of X: the X Consortium was eventually largely dismantled and replaced by x.org, which in turn was essentially superseded by the XFree86 project. A big hope is that a charter and organization can be set up so that the governance of the new organization is democratic (ala Apache Foundation, Gnome Foundation, etc), allowing changes in governance without the need to create a new organization.
As an X developer and heavy user, I personally am looking forward to having an X repository with current bits and sensible organization.
Xfree86 is the fork, (Score:5, Informative)
Keith has been actively working on X for longer than many X users have been alive. He knows more about the original design decisions, the history and politics, and the problems with X than just about anyone currently living. I would trust his opinion over any other member of the XFree86 "team". And, let's get the facts straight on the idea of forking the XFree86 code base. XFree86 is a fork of the original X code base. X was designed to be forked by each group that used it. That is why it is under the X license.
If Keith has concerns they are valid concerns.
Personally I think a lot of what has been going on in XFree86 is misguided. Especially the way 3D has been implemented. Not to mention that the lack of a high performance local binding for X is criminal considering that several ways to implement it have been known for at least 10 years. It was IN commercial implementations of X 10 years ago.
Stonewolf
More infro from OSNews (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH YMMV as far as this attack since there is no discussion of what specifically are the issues leading to the fork and rather vague comments about "corporate interests".
Keith's POV (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open Source development? (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of Open Source projects are controlled by 'elite cliques'. Usually they are the people who found the project. Other people can contribute source, but not everyone has write access to CVS (this would make it far to open to abuse). Often people who have shown that they can make a positive contribution to a project are given write access to CVS.
This doesn't prevent people from modifying their own copy of a piece of software and distributing the modifications, only from adding untested modifications to the main distribution. Even Linux uses this model. Only Linus, Alan and a few others can make modifications to the 'official' kernel. Would you trust Linux if n random Microsoft employee could make unreviewed changes to the kernel you use?
Re:Open Source development? (Score:2)
This is the case with Hercules. Anyone can contribute code, and if it's good, it's integrated into the source. Anyone who demonstrates that they are capable
Re:X *does* need a change (Score:4, Insightful)
The window resize issue is a known one, and due mostly to a bug in the "smart" scheduling algorithm XFree uses, rather than any inherant slowness of X or XFree.
The lagging of the window contents behind the borders is likewise known, havoc pennington has been playing with XSYNC lately to try and reduce that issue.
Re:X *does* need a change (Score:3, Informative)
If you need decent 2D response, and you can spare the slight increase in 3D performance, just use the 1.0.3xxx series.
Hope this helps.
Re:X *does* need a change (Score:4, Funny)
Me: marvels at sudden increase in 2D performance
Anyway, as I was saying, XFree86 is an excellent implementation and I won't hear a word said against it.
Me: attempts to mod own comment down
Re:X be small (Score:3, Insightful)
X has some superb architectural features (since 1986!) that Windows *still* doesn't have. There's no need to throw them away.
Yes the window manager needs to go (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of whiners will immediatly say "but that will allow window borders to be (horrors) INCONSISTENT and that will CONFUSE the poor stu
Re:How immature of Mr. Packard... (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that multiple forks of the linux kernel already exist (e.g. the -ac tree) that are fairly important, and that the gcc 2.9x/3.x series is based on the old egcs fork.
I'm not saying that forking is always good, but forks in major packages do happen, it's not the end of t
Re:How immature of Mr. Packard... (Score:5, Interesting)
if everyone started forking the kernel, glibc, gcc, and XFree among other core packages, where would that leave us?
When this exact thing happened with GCC some time ago. Did you know that GCC 3.0 is based off a fork of GCC 2.7.2 (IIRC) which for a while was known as EGCS? But, as EGCS progressed, it quickly surpassed GCC and, eventually, was adopted as the new GCC 3.0. So, had this fork not occured, GCC wouldn't be where it is today. I'm assuming that answers your question.
Re:Not telling? (Score:3, Interesting)
He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership of that team unviable.
We don't know if that is true or not, and we haven't heard his side of the issue yet. It may be a moot point, because it sounds like he anticipated those ideas would not be welcome, and this announcement probably confirms that notion.
What everyone seems to be saying, is he was the most useful person on the team, at least in terms
Re:Open Source goes Communist (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, so that's the end of Linux then, is it? Microsoft won in the end. Who'd have thought it?
What nonsense! This is Open Source. KP can create a fork if he wishes. Eventually, either his version will win out, or the original XFree86 will win out, or both will prove to be successful projects, or they'll find some rapprochement and re-merge the projects.
It turns out that it doesn't really matter. The net result will be that in 2004, there will be a better X for Linux than in 2003. And in 2005 X on Linux wil