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)
-
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.
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.
yum? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Screenshots (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, where did they get this kicker bar:_ lynucs_1759409500411796a9ba106_1.jpg [img38.exs.cx]
http://img38.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img38&image=screen
Also, will drop shadows and tranlucency work with any windows manager (i.e. XFCE4), or do I have to be running Gnome/KDE?
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:NO T JUST EYE CANDY!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Is it as good as Citrix? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because KDE wants to integrate NX into some of it's parts? I doubt this is due to some agenda by nanomachine but a common interest with the KDE team. It's not like NX doesn't work with ALL X windows applications. I think I'll wait until they explicitly snub the Gnome team (assuming that they are even interested in NX) before I put on my tinfoil hat.
REAL Transparency Screenshots (Score:5, Interesting)
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 try it with other games, UT, Savage and the like - wonderfully to run from other computers
Re:Screw the eye candy, where is the integration? (Score:1, Interesting)
When will we see fully improved network/remote access?
"Fully improved"? Please explain what you want in English. You appear to be using English words, but when you put them together, they make no sense.
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?
Since when do Microsoft invent stuff?
Why not work on something to compete against microsofts new gui/api interffaces based upon 3d rendering instead of pixel rendering?
Project Looking Glass [sun.com]. And, to answer your question "why not", because input and output is still 2D, so a 3D GUI is much more awkward to use than current GUIs.
Frustrating (Score:2, Interesting)
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 window is the contents of that window buffered. The rest of the time you're still in flicker-land.
I guess back in 2001 when XP was released average machine didn't have enough RAM to make it doable. Many perhaps still don't, but nonetheless Windows is last in the composited desktop arena.
Try vncserver and low-bandwidth X proxy (Score:1, Interesting)
Or you can use lbxproxy. [paulandlesley.org]
I use both of them to throw windows quite some distance - even across dial-up connections sometimes. Dial-ups are still slow, but not interminable. Cable or DSL, while not as snappy as local access, are still well within acceptable limits.
Oh, and Citrix sucks. The Citrix X server has got to be the worst one I've ever used. Constantly crashing, can't handle lots of applications like some versions of Mozilla. All in all, Citrix is a giant, stinking turd.
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:Goodbye to XFree forever (Score:3, Interesting)
So these extensions didn't happen in the last 9 months. They have been brewing for a while and are a lot further along than you might think. There is a ways to go, and Keith said that we are going halfway there on xserver (I think he means that we have opengl rendering and other backend tweaks to do in the future). But X is definitely getting a facelift.
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: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, sythesized, sifted, reviewed, and eventually had the creme-de-la-creme added to the mix. It's like making chocolate chip cookies but you've reviewed every chocolate chip and grain of flour prior to inclusion.
Now, this being said, has nothing been invented on Linux, is it all a facsimile? Of course not -- lots of apps exist in Linux that are unique. However, think about how music is composed nowadays. Most music written is a combination of theory, heritage, culture, and style. There's nothing really groundbreaking about it; no one is out making music from the sound of tomatoes rotting. However, the music is still new -- it's just another rendering of the general mish-mash.
Hence is Linux and Linux development. It doesn't always have to follow a pioneering stance; indeed, it rarely has. Nor is there a need to start now. I think in a lot of ways, the community does better if it takes the best of the already-field-tested and manipulates that into a successful product. Let the others take the heat and trials of something new and potentially groundbreaking (MS Bob, anyone?) and let us reap the goods.
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 in a portable way. when you move to a different machine, no need to change the Imakefiles.
Once you've got the hang of it, it makes for an uncluttered development environment.
Of course, the best solution would be to use Imake for its strengths and Auto* for ITS strengths, together, even!
Imake was necessary because X became so big and got ported to so many different computing platforms. The X development team really tried to solve the problems of moving source from machine to machine without it being to much of a hassle. Kudos.
I think it's brilliant.
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.
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]
Re:Debian (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Modularity and Stability (Score:2, Interesting)
"Modular" is an overloaded word, even in the field of software programming.
There is "modular vs spagetti" (a), yes. But there's also "modular vs monolithic" (b). The latter factor isn't involved so much with how the code interacts, but how it's distributed. In a non-modular, monolithic program, the source code is all in 1 big directory tree, and any person acquiring a copy of the code will be pretty assured to have gotten a self-consistent version. Whereas with modules there is a possibility that the code will be distributed separately, creating the opportunity for version mismatch errors impossible with a self-contained, monolithic codebase.
Think about the problems one can cross trying to compile software like Ephiphany, which requires specifically correct versions of mozilla, gnome, gtk2, pango, fribidi, glibc, and gcc. Any one of those being off could sabotage the build process.
One might argue that that with good modular design, interfaces will be stable and precise version matchup won't be important... but that presupposes "goodness" beyond what modularity can guarantee.