faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by janne on Thursday 26/Feb/2004, @03:34
|
"Does that answer your question?"
Uh, no. In case you didn't know, I was talking about this:
http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xserver
Xserver is based on Kdrive, but it improves and builds upon it. It's not related to Xfree (apart from that they are both X-servers). While Keiths Xserver is not a drop-in replacement for Xfree yet (it's still relatively young), it is improving and there are people using it instead of Xfree RIGHT NOW. There will be an official release of Xserver sometime in the future.
I'm not that interested in Xfree, Xserver seems to be where the action is. And since Keith Packard is it's lead architecht, I would have guessed that he would talk about it instead of Xfree. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by Simon Edwards on Thursday 26/Feb/2004, @04:56
|
This link here tries to explain the recent history:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6157
...but it doesn't answer the question about "X Server".
Watching the presentation, I had the big impression that Keith was planning on adding these extensions to the XFree86 code base.
To be honest, I don't know where X Server fits into the picture.
--
Simon
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by je4d on Thursday 26/Feb/2004, @05:24
|
As I understand it, kdrive is a small X server for handhelds.
xserver is Keithp's research prototype. It is not intended as a mainstream X server, it is just to experiment with composition managers, transparency, et al.
- je4d
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by janne on Thursday 26/Feb/2004, @07:24
|
"Watching the presentation, I had the big impression that Keith was planning on adding these extensions to the XFree86 code base."
He's no longer involved in Xfree-developement (he was kicked out), so I don't see how he could add to Xfree codebase.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by José on Thursday 26/Feb/2004, @07:32
|
Maybe this means add to XFree 1.0 licensed codebase?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by Anonymous on Thursday 26/Feb/2004, @11:28
|
Forking XFree 4.3rc2 is easy.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by janne on Friday 27/Feb/2004, @00:10
|
Why should he fork Xfree, when he already has Xserver, that does many thing Xfree does not do? Xfree is a monstrocity that could use a replacement.
True, Xserver is not as mature as Xfree is, but that is to be expected. It is a relatively young project. But that does not mean that it should be scrapped!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by Anonymous on Friday 27/Feb/2004, @00:41
|
XFree86 is established and has more hardware drivers.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by janne on Friday 27/Feb/2004, @05:09
|
Windows is more established and it has more hardware-drivers, maybe we should all concentrate on improving Windows instead of concentrating on Linux?
Just because something is "established" is not a good enough reason to think about replacement. Xfree may be "established", and it shows! it's developement is stagnating. Without any competition, they have no reason to really improve.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Why Xfree and not Xserver?
by chris on Friday 20/Aug/2004, @11:28
|
we cant concentrate on improving Windows
windows certainly has no competition, it's developement is stagnating.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
