X.Org 6.8.2 is Out

ertz writes "The X.Org Foundation today announced the fourth release of the X Window System since the formation of the Foundation in January of 2004. The new X.Org release, called X Window System Version 11, Release 6.8.2 (X11R6.8.2) builds on the work of X.org X11R6.8.0 and X11R6.8.1 released in 2004. X11R6.8.2 combines the latest developments from many people and companies working with the X Window System and an open X.Org Foundation Release Team. All Official X.Org Releases are available for download from the ftp site and at mirror-sites world-wide."

Ati Drivers

[espergreen]

I wonder if Ati users will have to wait another 6 months to get 6.8.2 support.

Debian

[ArsonSmith]

I wish they'd release Sarge already so that Xorg will go into unstable.

Change log?

[Anonymous Coward]

This announcement means nothing without a changelog

Torrent?

[darkmeridian]

Can someone set up a torrent at www.mininova.org? It is an open-tracker and well-populated.

Someone should have done this before we slashdotted their server.

Re:Debian?

[bogaboga]

Debian is very conservative in upgrades. I understand that it is why Debian is very stable too. They (Debian) wait for the early adopters (Mandrake et al...) to see and iron out the bugs. Why are you anonymous?

Re:So is Xfree86 dead?

[RealAlaskan]

Is it being actively maintained or developed?

Well, if nothing has changed since the fork, the answer is probably: ``Not really.'' Wasn't the glacial pace and control-freak policies of Xfree the reason for the fork in the first place?

Re:Ati Drivers

[MarcQuadra]

I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.

I also wonder when people with ATI card that are actually supported will realize it. My RADEON 9200 and 7500 get full 3D acceleration without the closed drivers.

Changelog

[BinLadenMyHero]

Dear Taco,

Please post a link to a summary of changes [x.org] when anouncing the release of a new version of any software.

Why is this under "Linux"?

[MondoMor]

This applies to a broad range of OSes. It has very little to do with Linux directly.

Re:Xgl

[TheRaven64]

Once again, someone copies Apple and yet completely misses the point. In OS X, all windows have a drop shadow, but the active window has a deeper one than all of the others making it obvious to the subconscious that it is `closer'. In the screenshot, all windows had the same amount of shadow. Nice eye-candy, but not good user interface design.

Re:Xgl

[Doc Ruby]

Er, you've missed the point. The point is that his X server is calling OpenGL, for all its rendering. So the HW can do all kinds of special effects, like piping scaled windows around for better representation of related contexts. Quibbling about beta features like dropshadow differentiation is really just sour grapes. I worked at Apple for a while; I know how tempting it is to complain when someone else furthers a technique Apple pioneered, or even just pioneered in promoting. If Apple were publishing GPL OpenGL X versions that run on other OS'es than OSX, there might be something to complain about. But not really - then we'd be happy to have some competition to keep things moving forward.

Linux?

[fm6]

This should have been put in the BSD section as well, for obvious reasons. I'd add the Unix section, except there isn't one. Come to think of it, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to have a single section for Linux and Unix (including BSD)? The distinction between Linux and Unix is more legal than technical.

Re:Ati Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.>>

I wonder when some Linux users will stop being so arrogant. Many people come to Linux AFTER they have purchased an ATI card with a desktop or notebook.

"Switch to Linux it's better."
"Okay. Reformat hard drive, install, configure. Hey, i can't get my ATI card to work."
"You are so stupid. Why didn't you buy a card that works with Linux?"

Re:YAY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every new version of OSX that has come out has made my old Mac run faster.

And the funny thing is how Apple fanboys like to make out that shows how good Apple are, rather than how crappy the early OSX releases were... X_x

Re:Ati Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

To make your post a little more useful, would you post a list of cards that DO have published interfaces? Make it easy for people to do the right thing, and they'll do it.

Re:Mostly stability

[ZephyrXero]

We need open hardware [kerneltrap.org]

Which card instead?

[tepples]

I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.

As soon as you tell us what to buy instead. Other than NVIDIA and ATI, neither of which publishes a full register level spec, which video chipsets are available as consumer level video cards sold in Best Buy stores or as part of a notebook computer? Or do you expect us all to buy X11 thin clients instead of video cards?

Re:Debian?

[stefanlasiewski]

Debian is very conservative in upgrades. I understand that it is why Debian is very stable too.

But isn't that why we have Stable, Testing and Unstable? "Stable" should be conservative in upgrades, Testing and Unstable are for incorporating new software into the future products?

Maybe they are just way more convservative then I realized :)

Debian/unstable

[phorm]

Yes, I'm very dissappointed in Debian/unstable for this. Certainly many other packages are available in unstable, up to CVS and bleeding-edge upgrades. But no X.org.

I've had some nasty things happen with package dependencies breaking in unstable, so I'm fairly sure they're not holding off because of that.

Re:Ati Drivers

[xoboots]

"I wonder when Linux users will stop buying hardware that doesn't have published interfaces.
"

Can you suggest an affordable, modern, consumer grade performance video card that meets this criteria? No you can't because there aren't any and you know it.

Re:So is Xfree86 dead?

[RealAlaskan]

Actually IIRC much of the reason for the fork was due to a license change that many groups/people thought was too restrictive and incompatible with the popular OSS licencies (GPL/BSD/APACHE etc...)

I remember that, and I agree it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I also recall that there had been long-standing, wide-spread dissatisfaction with the pace of development and the access to the process.

I was exaggerating when I said that Xfree isn't being developed; it still seems to be lumbering along at about the same old pace. I think that the pace at which x.org is moving will have nearly as much to do with its success as the new, improved (actually, same old?) license.

Re:So is Xfree86 dead?

[eschasi]

One could get contributions by demonstrating that there was an actual need. Thus far, it appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the developers. IMHO it would be much more effective approach for HP, Sun, et al to approach the card and chip vendors and twist their arms to release better specs and drivers under a mutually acceptable open source license. The end result would be much better cards for the $ than what we're likely to get from OGP.

Re:Ati Drivers

[GlassHeart]

anyone who seriously wants to switch, should not bitch about it after the fact.

What exactly constitutes "seriously wants to switch"? Why should a newbie commit to Linux before his old video card can even work? What you're asking for is bordering on religion.

In this world, you tell somebody that Linux is better, they believe you, try it out, and then make a commitment.

They should just cut their losses and buy an NVIDIA card.

No, in many cases "cutting their losses" means ejecting the live Linux CD, and rebooting to Windows. You may know how well worth the new video card Linux is, but how do you expect somebody who hasn't even gotten to try it to know that? Linux evangelists also need to understand that people are far less desperate to run away from Windows XP or 2000 than they were from Windows 98.

ATI's bad driver support does not negate the fact that Linux is better.

Sure, but it can certainly hide that fact very well. A lot of the complaints about how unstable Windows is really refers to third-party drivers, but Microsoft takes most of the heat. Life isn't fair that way.

Re:Ati Drivers

[xoboots]

"Why would we want a first class binary-level driver model? So that we can have:

compatibility problems
very difficult API maintainence problems
closed source drivers introducing OS bugs
etc..."

That's precisely why it is needed. We already have compatiblity problems just because each vendor has to reinvent the wheel everytime around. The bugs issue is also a non-starter since with a standard interface you have something with which you can verify the operation of a driver. Even if vendors released source code, without a standard interface it becomes incumbent on the community to rewrite the driver to conformance so that's not really a win situation.

NVidia may have leading support at this time (it was not always that way, recall) but they still aren't releasing their sources. You're just talking about reliance on a particular vendor because their drivers seem to work -- for now. So I don't really see the merit in your objection.

Re:So is Xfree86 dead?

[Chandon Seldon]

In some alternate universe where the only use for accelerated 3d was gaming, your post would make tons of sense.

Here in the real world, hardware accelerated 3d is an important capibility for everything from CAD to basic 2d desktop rendering.

The requirement for 3d hardware acceleration for general usage applications is becoming more and more widespread. Already features that were only avaiable in high-end 3d cards in 1995 are now required to get a reasonable user experiance out of both Windows XP and Mac OS X - I wouldn't assume that modern Open Source desktop environments won't use the same techniques to keep up.