Keith Packard's Xfree86 Fork Officially Started 578
Reivec writes "I was having a discussion with Keith Packard on IRC about the current developments in the XFree86 Saga and
politics already discussed here earlier, and I learned many interesting things. The project has a new website, xwin, and things are getting underway. 'We're in the process of building community, from that we can construct a government. It's a hard process to construct a representative system from what we have now, so it will take a bit of time. Weeks, not months. --Keith'" Read on for some more details. Update: 04/13 03:30 GMT by T : Reader Khalid points to this informative interview with Packard at Linux Weekly News, too.
"
The site is has only been up a day or so and there isn't a lot on it right now, but he would like to see a lot of community involvement on the site and many user submitted stories to get conversation rolling. A french site has already taken
notice and posted some information on xwin as well. Since such a fork could make a large impact on many *NIX users, I felt the need to ask, 'assuming you had an active fork under development, how interchangable would you expect it to be with Xfree (assuming release builds). Do you think distros would be quick to change if it offered improvements? Or could they
provide both and have the user choose upon installation?' Keith replied, 'Given that distros will have input into how it gets built, I expect they'd be interested in a version closer to what they need. And, given that RH and Debian maintainers are both actively encouraging changes, it's hard to see how they wouldn't want to follow. (or lead).' So if you have had any interest at all in the XFree86 development, this is definitely a community site you should
take advantage of."
So, what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
X development has been somewhat slow, but it seems like the really big issue has always been drivers -- is there any way that new leadership can help get specs from manufacturers?
Editors: can we get Keith for a
Oh, and, FSP? (first substantive post)
Linked to today on OSNews (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe we'll finally get a decent version of X instead of these whiny "don't criticize things even though we put this stuff out for the public" volunteers ignoring patches and stagnating things.
I know there are people who will reply saying nothing is wrong with X, or making long lists of excuses justifying things about X, or saying they've never had problems with X and that all these "sheep" who say X is bad are stupid and ignorant. I simply disagree; that is all. I'm not an experienced X developer. I'm just another user running X who has an opinion on it, whether these "volunteers" want to hear it or not.
xwin- Quartz (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh oh. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it's strangely democratic. Seriously, the vast majority of successful Open Source projects have a single maintainer. X hasn't, and some might speculate that that's part of it's problem. I guess this has to be done to attract a large number of old X developers, but I really wonder if a benevolent dictator could make things work better (and if not, just use XFree86).
Re:So, what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just hope the same thing happens in this case. Keith Packard has been doing some very good work in XFree86 lately, but there have been accusations that he's too 'corporate-controlled' (I have no knowledge as to the truth of these accusations one way or the other).
Re:xwin- Quartz (Score:5, Interesting)
OSNews... (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:So, what now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting drivers for X doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as those drivers are binary. I know, I know, Free Software, blah blah - however, if we're to turn these people to our side, we have to be sensitive to thier needs. In that vein, if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, they'll do much better I'm sure.
Editors: can we get Keith for a
Please!
Soko
Re:xwin- Quartz (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, it doesn't necessarily need starting over: That'll just kill its potential on one front for the sake of more ease at reaching another. X has a lot of good features (don't bash remote Xwindows) and totally pulling out of it could screw up what support is already there. If it's fixable, it should be fixed, and I still think it is fixable.
On a split being good (Score:5, Interesting)
I was reading this paper that Keith Packard and James Gettys wrote and its plain he has a clue and are really interested in concentrating on performance.
http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/html
The paper deals with network performance, but it was the "lets be practical "methodology that impressed me and it seems they are really on the road it finding solutions for speeding up X and also in many cases the popular X toolkits themselves.
Not to mention the "cool" stuff that Keith has done.
This fork isn't bad, its about time.
Re:So, what now? (Score:2, Interesting)
No thanks (Score:1, Interesting)
My vote is that we make all of the drawing layers be extensions (including the first one), then transition everyone to an OpenGL drawing layer. It's not clear how well that will work for current generation of small devices though.
Re:how far will it go? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, it will waste some time on put in new features into the Xwhatever, but hey, we have already waited for more than 10+ years to see a change. 1 more year will not make a much different.
Will the Xwhatever call XFreedom86? or XXP? XNT? XNX-> XNX's Next-generation X.
or XFast86 - A fast X with faster developement.
XFUD86
Lots of people have already done that (Score:3, Interesting)
Deja Vu: History of GCC and the ECGS (Score:5, Interesting)
From the GCC FAQ
In April 1999 the Free Software Foundation officially halted development on the gcc2 compiler and appointed the EGCS project as the official GCC maintainers. The net result was a single project which carries forward GCC development under the ultimate control of the GCC Steering Committee [gnu.org]
Re:Binary drivers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:what about VNC (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, We have java applications that use shared memory extension, without is, the application CRAWLS. Xfree on Cygwin and Xfree 4.2.1 for mandrake doesnt seem to support it. I have to use my Sun solaris box and its version of X11 server, it supports it. Took me awhile to find any documentation on even how to set SHMEM from the command prompt.
You speak of standards, all the extensions are not supported by every X server. Hell, look at the advanced extensions like GL and accelerated video rendering, multiple monitors, etc. Its a crapshoot if your not on a unix box.
BTW, I call it Xwindows, I dont care if Xfree wont admit people call it Xwindows. Deny it all you want, people call it Xwindows, just as people are using "Google" as a verb.
X works great for me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So, what now? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would rather as well. If there were 2 nearly functionaly equivilent products, but once used Open Source drivers and the other not, I'd take the vendor supporting Open Source without question. Unfortunately, we don't have this choice (at present), since all video card drivers seem to be binary only. We can't "win" them over if they're regarded as the enemy, though.
IMHO, no drivers at all are better than using binary drivers. I would rather Linux loses if winning means becoming non-free. Better to die on your feet, and so on.
To each thier own. I'd rather they get to know us and like us. Maybe then they'll be more receptive to providing a more open solution, rather than keeping all of thier specs under lock and key.
The difference here is that you are being pragmatic and I am being idealistic. If I wanted to be pragmatic I wouldn't use Linux in the first place.
I said - if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, - which mentions nothing of binary drivers. Perhaps I should of separated that a bit more. You see my idea, here? Or would you go all the way to the gates of hell in order to prove yourself right?
I'd just use Windows.
I have my answer.
Soko
Effects on Gnome, KDE, Window Managers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remote CANNOT be an "option" (Score:4, Interesting)
The remote ability of X does force design decisions in the protocol and interface, but you cannot remove these, because you would make "remote" impossible. Then you would have two display interfaces, one for local and one for remote.
You could make an argument that these design decisions are hurting X and that "remote" should be completely eradicated. That would be a logical argument (though I personally disagree).
But saying "remote should be an option" as though that is a physically possible solution is just wrong.
Re:So, what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's true that finding drivers or supported hardware can sometimes be a pain on the neck. Also, some niceties like DVD and video playing could be hard (or illegal) to use in your computer or sometimes not as good as in Windows.
I have heard a lot of times that people complain about 'Linux' because Y hardware doesn't work or because you cannot play something as simple as a Quicktime movie (thank you xine). The thing is that these people don't think that the manufacturers are the responsible, they *blame* Linux in general.
This is a paradox, because manufacturers don't want to make drivers for linux because they are afraid to release the specs. *If* they make binary-only the OSScommunity doesn't like them. Manufacturers don't care that much because it doesn't represent a big percentage of the user base. But the userbase doesn't grow (as quickly) because most of the end users don't like this lack of hardware support.
IMHO, no drivers ->THE WORST, binary only that depend on one version ->BAD, binary only drivers that can adapt to your changes (like nvidia drivers) ->GOOD, OS drivers ->BETTER.
So, I share Keith's point of view that XFree86 should have an API that can be used by the manufacturers. At least we could get more drivers. After that perhaps we can convince them to release the source code.
Re:So, what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
But you're building those bridges with binary drivers and closed source. What's the point? You might as well use free software on Windows because the end-result is the same. You're still using a closed source system. Why do you think Linux has a greater marketshare than arguably better systems like MacOSX, BeOS, or QNX? It's not the price because BeOS didn't get any attention even when they made it cost-free. It's not the applications because MacOSX has many more. It's not the variety of supported platforms because the majority of Linux users use x86. The primary reason why Linux is winning is because Linux is open source. That's the distinguishing feature of Linux. It's the whole POINT of Linux.
I've seen your rationale which is "better to get drivers now and convince them of the benefits of open source later". I disagree. There's no incentive for the vendor to change their policy when they have already sold you the hardware. All you've really done is prop-up the binary-driver business for a couple more years. Much better to let the vendors know our rules up front. Then they can play if they want to and there are no nasty surprises later on. If they decide that their specs and/or source are more important than selling their hardware, doesn't bother me, Linux will do just fine without them. Another vendor will always appear who is willing to release the code or the specs.
Pragmatism is all well and good - it gets the job done - but a pragmatist has no ideals. You might be using Windows XP tomorrow for whatever reasons. And that's fine. I've no problem with that. But if you want Linux to win then you'll demand code for your drivers. If you want Linux to win then you need to be an idealist.
Re:Effects on Gnome, KDE, Window Managers? (Score:3, Interesting)
And no matter how much code is added, I still can't get the interface to work correctly, for instance to stack the windows in the order I want, or to cleanly make a full-screen window, or to allow the window to be dragged or resized by grabbing some point inside the window. All of these would be trivial if override-redirect windows were used by all applications.
Also you said "GTK window decorations would probably look much different to KDE ones to any other TK out there" which is exactly what I expected. It took only 10 minutes for somebody to blurt out the "oh no it's inconsistent and will confuse the user". Let's try it and see rather than parrotting this crap. Somehow must people can push a button in both a KDE and Gnome app despite the different appearances...
Yep! (Score:3, Interesting)
So what was I to do? Get Linux and install wine? If I enjoyed pain, sure. Or: Get Windows and run a webserver, mail-fetching programs, Python for windows, xchat for windows, blahblahblah for windows? No, I need a Linux environment, not just some of the applications that happen to be compilable under win32.
I made two computers. Linux box is headless, Windows box is not (of course). Installed windows, installed cygwin, installed XFree86 on the windows machine (easy, cygwin package), got remote login to work. Presto, Windows and Linux co-existing the easy way. The only improvement would have to be a seperate monitor and keyboard, but that takes up physical space.
how often do you need remote xwindows
More like, how often do I need local xwindows? My answer is "never." Don't treat remote windows like it's a party trick. I'd say it's the most important feature, period!
Re:Remote XWindows (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got a server which is relatively beefed up, and then have 486/586 machines scattered around the office. If one of them break down.... junk 'em.
As far as response time is concerned.... well, the terminals have 64MB, the network is 10/100, approx. 30% have sound (depending on whether I could be bothered enough giving the user that option), and everything opens extreeemly fast (except OpenOffice - but I keep an instance of that running on the server anyway to increase startup).
The cost? Well, in terms of modern IT budgets - nothing.
X without remote would kill my whole setup. I think the (likely) fork is a good thing, if for nothing else than shaking things up, but don't touch my remote....
All IMHO etc. etc - usual disclaimers apply.
Re:X works great for me (Score:2, Interesting)
Under Mac OS X 10.2, start playing a DVD. Check your CPU usage.
Now make a terminal semi-transparent. Drag it over the top, and watch the DVD play through.
Check your CPU usage. It hasn't changed.
My linux XFree-based desktop can't do that.
I think the future of linux desktops may lie with DirectFB [directfb.org] and their rootless X server. All the remote functionality/backwards compatibility, only with a new, clean, and clever rendering engine.
May I say, I am constantly using Apple X11. The X protocol is great, and despite what some say, perfect for a practical world. It's just the XFree86 engine that's showing its age.
development guides (Score:4, Interesting)
A set of guidelines for modern xfree86 on how to get the best performance would help a huge fraction of the open-source world and improve the appearance of Unices on the desktop.
As a long-time UNIX user... (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from that first time running Linux Doom over the network back in 1994 just to see how slow it would be, I have never had the desire to run a bandwidth-intensive X application over the network.
Yet, I still use X applications remotely, day after day---XEmacs, xmms, xterm, you name it---and I'm not about to stop.
Come to think of it, we already HAVE the two things I've listed above, so in fact, I'm already happy. Half-life under Wine plays frickin' fast, as does the native version of Wolfenstein 3D, and I can still run my other apps remotely.
I'd still be interested in seeing what Keith comes up with.
Finally, it sounds to me (from the older article that was linked to above) like David can go fuck off: if he doesn't use X anymore, then he should give up his spot on the XFree86 steering committee to someone with a stake in XFree's future. At a minimum, this should be someone who uses the damn thing!
Go, Keith! Some of the best applications in existence (XEmacs, gcc-3.x, and XFree86 itself) were adversarial forks.
Cheers,
Kyle
Re:So, what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
I heard ATI had good X support, but half the cards I tried I couldn't get working properly, half the time I needed to use the vesa driver and get no video or 3D acceleration from a 3 year old video card.
This is just crazy. Its rather difficult to support an OS like this, but I thought it was all a lack of support or documentation to write the drivers. I hadn't heard the devs were holding drivers or becoming the bottleneck. I mean, c'mon, get some professionals to work on this already. Sheesh.