Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
X GNOME GUI Graphics Ubuntu

Xfce, LXDE, GNOME3 Desktops Running On Ubuntu Mir Via XMir 162

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the why-not dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Through the use of XMir, a translation layer for running legacy X11 applications atop Ubuntu's forthcoming Mir display server, the GNOME Shell, Xfce, and LXDE desktops now run on this X.Org Server alternative. With XMir, the traditional window managers are still running while Mir treats these desktops as a single window."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xfce, LXDE, GNOME3 Desktops Running On Ubuntu Mir Via XMir

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Hello (Score:5, Informative)

    by iggymanz (596061) on Monday June 24, 2013 @08:25PM (#44097199)

    there are actually at least 8 X servers

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:44PM (#44097539)

    Been using X since the 80s, and mutil monitors on X since somewhere in the late 90s, both with the displays all on the same box, and later, with some of the displays running on separate computers using xdmx.

    Using Xorg.conf for xinerama config, while maybe not ideal for grandma, wasn't terrible, and you only did it once. But, for folks like you, there is now xrandr which you can setup via xorg.conf, use your WMs hooks into it to do it all gui-ish, or just run shell commands to setup your multi-monitor layout (since it would be trivial to write [hell you could do it in a short shell script], there is probably a daemon available that will auto add a monitor when plugged in and remove it when unplugged, but I am not familiar with it if it exists).

    As for not being able to move a window between monitors, you are doing it wrong. Depending upon your window manager, and how *you* set things up, you can have independent displays (uncommon, but apparently how you set things up), one big shared desktop like windows and mac (gnome, kde, etc.), or, something smarter, a kind of hybrid between the two where things act like a unified desktop when you want them to, but you can switch virtual desktops independently per each physical display-- which is *very* nice (e17).

    You can drag windows between displays even when the displays are on different boxes (xdmx). Unfortunately xdmx only works with xinerama, and newer graphics cards only work with xrandr, so in a crappy transition period now for this. But, if you ever want to setup a video wall with 100 monitors acting as one unified display, xdmx is probably the only game in town.

      If you want to use MS Windows, nobody is stopping you, but please don't spread FUD.

  • Re:Hello (Score:4, Informative)

    by Grishnakh (216268) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:25PM (#44097701)

    You don't know much about software, do you?

    X.org wasn't a different display server, it was a fork of XFree86. Not only did it use the exact same protocol, it even used the exact same code (at least at first, though they added some new extensions later after everyone dumped XFree86 and switched to X.org).

    No one (except a few morons) said that the X.org fork would be the "demise" of Linux. I remember the whole thing quite well; everyone was relieved that X on Linux would finally stop stagnating, and get some much-needed new development without that idiot Dawes holding everyone back. Within a very short time, all the distros had switched to the new fork and XFree86 became nothing more than a memory.

  • Re:Hello (Score:5, Informative)

    by evilviper (135110) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @01:15AM (#44098325) Journal

    and at least one of the BSDs actually has a Linux compatibility layer to run binary Linux applications.)

    Good god you're making me feel old. Not only have all the big three BSD OSes had Linux binary emulation for a long damn time... but I distinctly recall writing how-to's for a couple of them (that bounced around the internet and got translated into many languages I don't speak) some time LAST MILLENIUM.

    No exaggeration there. The date on OpenBSD's compat_linux man page is March 1995. FreeBSD may have been a couple years earlier.

  • Re:Hello (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @02:25AM (#44098473)

    I remember the opposite, switch from XFree86 to Xorg was welcomed by the users instantly, as XFree86 succumbed to the same disease as the original X Consortium that XFree86 was an alternative for.

  • Re:Hello (Score:3, Informative)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @06:02AM (#44098955) Journal

    as X is horribly obsolete and slow.

    Oh for heaven's sake, not this again!

    [Citation needed]

    Oh and here's mine:

    http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=357678 [teamliquid.net]

    So, if X is so horribly slow and "obsolete" how come it gets better frame rates than anything else?

    Seriously, for high performance stuff, Xorg (via DRM/DRI) basically allows a shared library to dump data straight at the graphics card without even the kernel; getting in the way for most of it. That is very efficient, and why X gets as good (and slightly better) frame rates than other "non obsolete" operating systems.

    And do not even try to claim that this is somehow a new thing. On and off since it's inception, X11 has been the top performing GUI system (SGI in the 90's and according to the benchmarks Xorg now).

    X11 deals with all the grotty stuff round the edge that isn't the domain of the graphics card very well, like wrangling windows and pointers, dealing with copy/paste and communication between clients, and also, of course, remoting. And it also knows when to get out of the way and let the efficient stuff be efficient.

  • Re:Hello (Score:4, Informative)

    by korgitser (1809018) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @06:22AM (#44098985)

    millenium - a thousand anuses, from latin 'anus'
    millennium - a thousand years, from latin 'annus'

  • Re:KDE (Score:5, Informative)

    by KugelKurt (908765) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @08:13AM (#44099305)

    He's talking BS.
    Martin Graesslin, the KWin maintainer, began to prepare KWin for Wayland before Mir was even announced. So he designed the transition path to support two and only two back ends. See https://plus.google.com/115606635748721265446/posts/136nV4uojKH [google.com] for details (public post, no need for a G+ account).

    Graesslin also made it repeatedly clear that he won't support single-distro solutions. That means no support for MS Windows in KWin, OSX' Quartz, or Android's SurfaceFlinger. Somehow nobody ever had a problem with that decision. Only after Canonocal announced Mir Ubuntu fanboys began to whine.

    There are no technological benefits for Mir over Wayland. Canonical made false claims as outlined on http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMxODA [phoronix.com] but they've since redacted the statements. Wayland even works with Android drivers: http://mer-project.blogspot.fi/2013/04/wayland-utilizing-android-gpu-drivers.html [blogspot.fi]

    The reasons for Mir are not technological, they are purely economical. Canonical wants to establish asymmetric licensing to have an economic advantage over the competition: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html [dreamwidth.org]
    Wayland OTOH is under MIT/X11 license for everybody. This means that not only can any Linux vendor grab it and to anything with it, incl. to make an Android version that uses Wayland: http://ppaalanen.blogspot.com/2012/09/wayland-on-android-upgrade-to-404-and.html [blogspot.com]
    Mir's licensing makes it forever impossible to become part of any major BSD variant. Wayland, however, is being ported to FreeBSD: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMwMzE [phoronix.com]

    Wayland is being pushed by industry giants such as Intel and Red Hat, as well as smaller companies like Collabora (creators of many technologies commonly used on GNU-based Linux such as Telepathy, WebKit-GTK, etc.: https://www.collabora.com/projects/ [collabora.com] ).
    Mir is just backed by Canonical who, while claiming to be the most popular Linux distributor, still makes no money: http://www.internetnews.com/blog/skerner/canonical-ubuntu-linux-is-still-not-profitable.html [internetnews.com]

  • Waay too easy. (Score:4, Informative)

    by thegarbz (1787294) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @08:27AM (#44099375)

    Using Xorg.conf for xinerama config, while maybe not ideal for grandma, wasn't terrible, and you only did it once. But, for folks like you, there is now xrandr which you can setup via xorg.conf, use your WMs hooks into it to do it all gui-ish, or just run shell commands to setup your multi-monitor layout (since it would be trivial to write [hell you could do it in a short shell script], there is probably a daemon available that will auto add a monitor when plugged in and remove it when unplugged, but I am not familiar with it if it exists).

    Unfortunately xdmx only works with xinerama, and newer graphics cards only work with xrandr, so in a crappy transition period now for this. But, if you ever want to setup a video wall with 100 monitors acting as one unified display, xdmx is probably the only game in town.

    You had me at "Just right click and click output to and select multi-monitor". Phew that was easy.

    Except you didn't say that. What you propose is something that Linux was known for in the 90s, really shit complicated and borderline unusable multi-monitor support.

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...