X.Org Server 1.16 Brings XWayland, GLAMOR, Systemd Integration 226
An anonymous reader writes The much anticipated Xorg Server 1.16 release is now available. The X.Org "Marionberry Pie" release features XWayland integration, GLAMOR support, systemd support, and many other features. XWayland support allows for legacy X11 support in Wayland environments via GL acceleration, GLAMOR provides generic 2D acceleration, non-PCI GPU device improvements, and countless other changes.
The systemd integration finally allows the X server to run without root privileges, something in the works for a very long time. The non-PCI device improvements mean System-on-a-Chip graphics will work more smoothly, auto-enumerating just like PCI graphics devices do. As covered previously, GLAMOR (the pure OpenGL acceleration backend) has seen quite a bit of improvement, and now works with Xephyr and XWayland.
Soon... (Score:3, Insightful)
there will be no usable X, at least not from X.org, outside of poetterix.
Re: Soon... (Score:2)
systemd dependency is optional in Xorg 1.16.
It's likely that the major desktops will have switched to Wayland and deprecated X support before systemd is made a hard dependency for Xorg.
Re:Soon... (Score:5, Funny)
Why are you writing numbers in binary?
Re:Soon... (Score:4, Funny)
It's actually at least 15. They always walk single file in order to hide their numbers.
me, for one (Score:2)
I use it. Sometimes to run something like Wireshark, sometimes I do:
ray@mymac$ ssh -X -C me@linux.myhouse
How many people do you think read your post (Score:2)
For a rough guesstimate, let's say 25 people read your post. At least one of those people (4%) use XQuartz. Is 4% of people "next to no one"?
Re:Soon... (Score:4, Interesting)
ML removed the old stale obsolete Apple-branded X11.app. It did not uninstall XQuartz. And XQuartz is quite actively maintained. Does the average kid running GarageBand need it? No.
It's been an optional install from the beginning because most folks don't need X11 apps. Native mac ports of apps are much nicer most of the time and pretty easy to find. Running legacy X11 apps is not something most people need. But if the need arises, you can, and it works REALLY well. LOTS of people run command-line FOSS tools under OSX though.
Apple solved the crappy UNIX desktop environment problem. They just didn't give away the source. I don't care if software is FOSS or not however. If it's good, I'll use it. If the price is too high, there's plenty of ways around that issue that any 14-yr-old kid with a web browser can find.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and in fact, if you try to run an X11 app without XQuartz installed on 10.9, it will ask you if you want some help installing XQuartz and will direct you to a site to download it.
Re: (Score:3)
WINE on the Mac uses XQuartz too. It works well, except when it doesn't. I've had it freeze up my display completely - happens when I exit my WIN32 app and then restart it. If I wait a while before restarting, it's okay. But if I restart it too soon, X launches and the screen goes all white. That's when you find out that the Mac's equivalent of Windows task manager is pretty crappy. It won't come up either, so you need to reboot...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a WINE issue, not really an XQuartz issue. Really only an issue with full-screen stuff. To be fair, I've had this happen a lot on Linux/BSD machines as well.
I never use the old "Cmd-Opt-Esc" Force Quit method. Easier to hold opt and rightclick dock icon and hit force quit there. If that's not an option I usually have a terminal window open and I can just kill it from the CLI. TotalTerminal is awesome and should be part of the base OS. I haven't had a situation where it didn't pop up over whatev
Re: (Score:2)
It's enough that it sees active development and a lot of use where old RISC-based UNIX boxes were once king.
In terms of installed base, there's FAR more headless Linux servers than desktops, so X11 users in general are "next to no one" right?
Generally it gets used when some "gotta-have-it" FOSS app lacks a proper mac port. X11 apps are less desirable because generally they suck compared to proper mac applications. And it's not XQuartz that's the problem, it's X in general. X11 on the mac is a last resort
Re: (Score:2)
And how many desktop Linux users do you know outside of the IT department besides a simple web-browsing box some guy set up for his Grandma?
Because pre-installed Linux desktops just fly off the shelves. Please. The only widely successful end-user Linux environment for daily use has been Android.
Both Linux and FreeBSD desktop users are a minority that few care about. Though if you count the Sony PS4 as desktop FreeBSD usage then it will soon trump Linux. Market share is a lame argument, FreeBSD is a grea
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm tired.... thought you trying to bash XQuartz for some reason.
I don't think anyone has compiled real statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if the number exceeds the number of FreeBSD desktop users by a large margin. It's certainly not an insignificant number but probably a fairly small percentage of OSX users. Most Mac users I know have Fink or Macports installed along with XQuartz but my numbers are likely skewed because I'm an IT monkey. Most of the "average" mac users I know only ended up us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac hardware isn't really overpriced. Just stick to the base config and add your own RAM and bigger drive. The thing is that Apple doesn't have crappy budget machines aside from the Mac Mini and even the Mini is no slouch. Look at similar PC's with the same config, in the same form factor with nice sturdy all-metal chassis. You'll find the Mac is often cheaper.
Where Apple is unappealing to a lot of "enthusiasts" is the lack of low-end or mid-range expandable machines with slots. People shouldn't have t
Re: (Score:2)
I agree; Apple sucks.
The best (and maybe only) competition so far, though, is Ubuntu and its derivatives. Fucking christ, that's depressing.
Re: (Score:3)
BSD/Linux X11 has breakneck feature obsolescence because nobody wants to actually standardize. I can run a 20 year old Windows app on Windows 8.1, but I can't run a 8 month old Linux application because it may depend on some obscure UI/UX feature that someone didn't like and quit maintaining.
Actually, I thought the whole impetus behind moving to Wayland was being able to delete legacy X11 features. Anything that uses X standards seems to compile and run on any X11 platform (XSun, Xorg, XSgi, XQuartz) without too much hassle (take GTK 2.x, for example. Or Qt4).
Re: (Score:2)
There is no standard working-out-of-the-box desktop linux.
/quote>
There is no standard working-out-of-the-box desktop Windows.
To use pre installed windows. ...
Boot the machine. Activate it. Spend 4 hours updating and rebooting while uninstalling the shitloads of crapware and Norton that come pre installed just so I can finally install the stuff I need from 8 different sites.
Or
I can put in a burned DVD 2 min later I am in a live Linux environment. Install Linux ... 20 min later it is installed, updated and has the stuff I want on it.
Linux actually goes from zero to a workable system really quickly.
Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope it is not a requirement and will never be on for X.org. Otherwise, I will end up having to make my Linux-servers X-less and probably use Windows as terminal. After all, with systemd, windows-like levels of intransparency, insecurity, complexity and developer arrogance have already been reached. One system with that is quite enough, I do not need to deal with that crap on Linux as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I use systemd on GobiLinux to launch Gnome3 in Wayland so I can tab-indent, via my Dvorak keyboard, the UTF-16-encoded, dynamically-typed code of my GPLed program in Emacs. While playing Oggs in Amarok2 through PulseAudio on OSS4. /nerd-troll
Re: (Score:2)
He's suit in disguise!
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Systemd definitely solves a problem that exists. Unfortunately, it solves it in the same way that a nuclear warhead solves the problem of rat infestation.
To be fair, systemd have never irradiated anyone, like Godzilla - yet.
(Though, we should all fear the day it does...)
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For the reasons you describe, it is not on my system. Currently, long-term support for Debian without it looks like a temporary solution, but eventually, I think, I will have to go to Gentoo. (Unless by that time a few more distros have woken up. There may be some reason Debian now has long-term support for the last version that does not make systemd mandatory...) I need security and reliability, not "faster boot times".
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed debian has extended support for debian 6, we are on debian 7, but systemd-logind is the only thing installed.
On the other hand it is entrenched like the monster in Alien.
# aptitude purge libsystemd-login0
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
The main beef I have with it is the "embrace-and-extend" cancer-like model that is used to push it on people by. If it were just a cultured, friendly alternative, but anybody not wanting to use it could easily be without it, I would have no problem with it at all. Instead it is a clear, uncultivated power-grab in the Linux-sphere and that is not good at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Informative)
I think the analogy is completely valid. Sure, closed source is even more effective at embrace & extend and at forcing technology on users they do not want, but the same principle applies here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is too much political smog that surrounds it. The fights for and against it very often devolve into political squabbles. Many egos jockeying for position. So in that sense it very much has an open source culture behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you even know what "embrace and extend" means. Odd, given your user ID. Alzheimer's? Oh, wait, I get it, it was just "flamebait."
Re: (Score:3)
However, systemd is not the only way to solve those problems. Overall it seems to have more politics than technical advantages that surround it.
The real problem is that so many systems "require" it so that you can't escape it. If you want newer alternatives then you stick out as a subversive. The idea of simple tools that do simple things well falls by the wayside as the distros attempt to be the fastest booting things out there, or by mimicking other systems.
Re: (Score:2)
systemd is the solution that exists though, and is being standardized on.
All of the other SysV replacements either lack the features, or have significant problems.
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what particular one thing does SysV init do well in your opinion? I honestly can't think of a single thing. It's crappy at managing services, it's crappy at running shell scripts (as witness by the non-standardness of init.d scripts), it's shit at managing running services with interdependencies (inittab), it's shit at dynamically reconfiguring systems (e.g. network reconfiguration for Wifi.), etc. etc.
There's a reason alternatives were created, y'know.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally agree. When I read his analogy it initially made sense to me, but only because I implicitly switched the order of Systemd and SysV init because that makes sense. "abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed" perfectly describes the hell that was init scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
Can the propaganda. What you claim is so obviously wrong, it is not funny anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
He's accurately describing the reasons for systemd and the reasons so many of us use it.
He's giving the main, standard party line. It is not "propaganda," it is how people with a different view than you really feel about it.
Compare that to your hyperbole that misrepresents the choice, and ask yourself who is producing propaganda!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMO you have it exactly backwards on all the factual parts. I can agree that people will have different preferences, and if somebody enjoys using SysV init, great!
But on a more factual level, it is somewhat... absurd to claim that systemd does what it does poorly. To get that view, instead of listening to SysV fans, you'd need to listen to people who wanted the systemd features, but found they didn't achieve what they claimed. And if you look around, that is not the nature of the dispute at all. The dispute
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think SysVinit is particularly good at anything, especially considering it's SysV's complete lack of functionality that caused the emergence of 9 different ways to do network config (Debian way, RHEL way, Gentoo way, and many others); 9 different ways to do logging (syslog, rsyslog, syslog-ng, etc.); and so on with starting daemons, yada yada.
That said, I'm really somewhat disappointed that, as powerful of a unifying force within the Linux distro world Poettering's contributions have been, they comp
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's crappy at managing services,
init doesn't manage services. Services are either managed by inetd or by themselves. init only has to start the services.
it's crappy at running shell scripts (as witness by the non-standardness of init.d scripts),
That's proof of how good it is at running shell scripts. It just runs the script.
it's shit at managing running services with interdependencies (inittab)
Init doesn't need to be good at that. You can use a tool to create your runlevels which can figure it out. The only problem I see is the lack of parallelism. I suspect that this could have been fixed without replacing init.
it's shit at dynamically reconfiguring systems (e.g. network reconfiguration for Wifi.),
Why in the love of all that is Unix would you expect init to handle network configuration? Its job is to start and stop things, not to reconfigure your NIC. This mindset is exactly how we got systemd when we didn't really need it. We should have been able to use selinux to run X without root.
Re: (Score:2)
One service should do one job. The problem is that in the past people tried to lump everything onto one tool or small set of tools, and so started thinking along the lines of "what if we had just one system daemon to rule them all?" Ie, init should do init and not network configuration.
Another problem people point to which I don't see as a problem, is a complaint that different distributions have different methods of doing the same thing. I don't see a problem with 10 different solutions to the same prob
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are people with different opinions about that. SysV init works very well for me and in particular lets me customize everything, which I routinely do. Now, is some people want systemd, I am completely fine with that. What I am decidedly not fine with is having systemd forced on me.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit propaganda from an AC, no less. Either you are lying or you have no clue what is going on. In any case you are being dishonest and follow just the usual patterns of lying, cheating, and ad Hominem that is so prevalent in systemd circles whenever anybody dares to say something negative.
Re: (Score:2)
nah, most slashdot comments are really just versions of what the AC said, especially when they have anything to do with politics, where nerds are especially unclueful.
i thought it was a pretty solid troll. it has nothing to do with systemd in particular. that you thought it did is just more evidence of the troll's success.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that "sysv" keeps on being trotted out as our only hope against poetterbloat?
sysvinit became dominant over the bsd-style init in Linux-land, where most of us live these days if we're even still running Unix. It's pretty obvious why it would be the topic of conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because everybody else other than [that guy who is not cool enough for our clique] failed at writing a SysV init replacement that actually functions well and doesn't introduce new problems.
I guess name-calling doesn't translate directly to code.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry newbie, without a UID you're clearly in disguise. Busted!
Anyways, it was the old guard who was against linux back then. Linux was the new OS, trying new things. You try to place it as having been in opposition to windoze, but it really in opposition to commercial *nix. That end users who use it would otherwise have been stuck on windows was related to the high price of commercial *nix, that's it. Everybody I knew in the 90s that hated windows also at some point wished OS/2 had had available software,
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd vs init: It's a Swiss Army knife vs a chef's knife. A shiny abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed,
systemd needs improvements in many areas - I can't argue with that.
However, it's worth noting that in my past few days of playing with CentOS 7 [bfccomputing.com], it's been tremendously faster than CentOS 6 on every workload I've been able to throw at it.
I haven't done a deep dive to figure out why exactly, but I have noticed 'tuned' running, doing some dynamic system optimizations, it seems via sys
Re: (Score:2)
The main improvement systemd needs is that is has to stop forcing itself on people and raping their systems. It has to be an option among many, not the "one true way". And forcing itself on people at this crappy, early stage is beyond anything I have ever seen, and can only be attributed to total disrespect for all Linux users. If systemd were stable, secure and well-documented, I would say these people were just severely misguided. This way I can only call what they are doing outright malicious.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah systemd showed up at my door with a baseball bat and demanded that I switch to a distro that uses it!
Sorry, false alarm, it was just the pizza guy.
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like this analogy! The reason I use Linux is that I like excellent, simple and clear tools which are decidedly "user serviceable parts inside". I do mess with the init-system in occasion, and some of my hacks have been reliable with the traditional init for more than a decade now. The systemd answer to that is "submit a patch", in C no less and if they do not like it (which is standard), have it rejected. How that can be viewed as an improvement is beyond me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So now your real complaint comes out. They rejected your contributions because your contributions were using the old system it replaced. No, they aren't going to want to roll in your SysV init scripts. But there is compatibility with them for the users. You can still use your init scripts, and write new ones.
You're just butthurt that they didn't accept your patch, that didn't even attempt to use the same technologies and languages that they're using. Fail.
Re: (Score:3)
No, generally emacs users are happy with systems that have both emacs and vi, and emacs won't prevent vi (and all the tools depending on ex/ed) from working.
This is more like replacing ISC bind with samba domain controller. It's incomplete, broken by design, and has so many levels of abstractions that no sane person can admin it without specialized tools.
I'm already boycotting Red Hat 7 because of the poetterification that changes simple things that work to complex things that don't. Now Xorg will have to
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I never saw a distribution release that said "we're replacing vi with emacs", or "X finally did the work necessary to interoperate with emacs", and no flame wars that people who still use vi are luddites holding back the advancement of Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I use both every day. Emacs is the best code editor, and vim is the best system config editor. I've been using both for 15+ years.
And BTW, I'm running systemd and it didn't eat my cat or whatever when I use an old SysV initscript. Actually, it has backwards compatibility for that! While I do really like systemd, I haven't converted any of my own initscripts. Mostly because I'm the only one using them. If they were in released software, well, it is normal that SysV get replaced eventually and it is a small b
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Emacs never tried to crush vi. Systemd is trying to crowd out all other init-systems and to remove choice from the user. That is a bit different.
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone thinking about defending systemd should read this [pappp.net].
Mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone thinking about defending systemd should read this [pappp.net].
Interesting read, but my "defense" of systemd is usually an "systemd could be the devil himself and you'd still sound like a paranoid asshat." I don't care if people don't want to use systemd. but shouldn't they be putting effort into collaborating on a set of remove-systemd-dependancy patches instead of bitching on the internet about the inevitable?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because the systemd group is creating the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't like thinking it's inevitable yet. We like thinking that maybe the distros that we used to use and love can be convinced to stay the way we love them instead of growing apart.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And why should I give a rats ass what some random blogger thinks about software? Pappp's opinion about SystemD is as relevant as the homeless person down the street.
There will always be a Linux distribution that doesn't use systemD, if you are so adamant about not using it, don't use it instead of trying to convince everyone else it's evil because CLEARLY everyone else doesn't agree with you. You people that hate systemd are worse than "born-again's" and mormons and just like them you don't have the answer
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:3)
I get your intent but you really messed up the delivery. The Mormons do believe Jesus is their lord and savior, so arguing that someone doesn't care whatever wacky thing they believe if they support that statement would be exactly the opposite of your intended meaning because it's in fact true.
My point is that the anti-systemD propaganda out there runs from it's all a redhat conspiracy to personal attacks on the author. Some talk about systemD violating Unix philosophy, very few talk about implementation an
Re: (Score:2)
Great link. Very well stated.
Re: (Score:2)
True, it hits the key point that systemd is not a unix-like way of doing things. That isn't to say that it's a bad thing in itself (if you subtract out all the politics). So the question is whether you want Linux to remain a unix-like system or not.
I haven't seriously used Linux in awhile, but it just doesn't seem much like Unix anymore, and it's not just systemd doing this.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still a little confused as to why the Linux crowd didn't just adopt launchd from Apple. It's open-source as well and while "different" it's launch scripts are readable and it does its job quite well. Personally, I prefer the old BSD rc scripts but I can tolerate launchd. Systemd looks like a far bigger mess and will end up fragmenting quite a few projects. I imagine GNOME functionality under FreeBSD will take a nosedive. systemd seems very "Un-UNIXy".
As long as systemd support remains OPTIONAL in X
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree to that. I do not object to systemd's existence. I disagree with the way it is forced on people. Next, it will probably try to invade libc. It already tried to mess with the kernel, but fortunately was stopped. At this time, it seems only Gentoo and Slackware have long time plans to do without it or leave it optional. Gentoo had to fork udev to make that possible. All other major distros seem to have caved to pressure and, as far as I can see, without any arguments that are based on any r
Re: (Score:2)
I've just made it back from RTFA and Phoronix is calling it "Optional systemd Support".
Re: (Score:2)
You could always run a non-GNU Linux setup if you don't like glibc. I'm all in favor of that!
Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a true story. I was in a CentOS 7 system via chroot and trying to troubleshoot some problems. If it were CentOS 6 I would just run "service rsyslog start" and have syslog running in the chroot so I can get the diagnostics I was expecting, but since systemd wasn't actually running I couldn't do that. I had to launch rsyslog directly by command-line, but then it didn't listen on /dev/log like it's supposed to and I had no logging. After all, it's systemd integrated now and gets its listen socket a different way. And this is just the most recent incident.
Systemd may be technically better than sysvinit but the latter is just shell scripts which are sufficiently independent of anything else and just work. Systemd takes over your machine and wants to get its hands into everything to the point that you can't even use it anymore without systemd. This is what we're worried about what will happen to X.Org and other software.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the story here. We are not moving to RHEL 7 because of systemD (and I don't make that decision, although I support avoiding systemD. It doesn't offer me anything but headache).
Re: (Score:2)
systemd makes system administration a joy.
Please explain, in detail, what was so difficult before that is now much better because of systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
I think even of my Linux Laptop as a "server". But you are right, headless servers of course do not get X, unless there is some stupid distro dependency, like a gnuplot installation suddenly pulling in a full X server...
What about non-Linux users? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to me it sounds like they are moving to being Linux only. As someone who supports multiple UNIX flavors (AIX, Solaris, HP UX, IRIX, and FreeBSD), all of which are running some form of X (and several of them running X.Org), I am displeased with the trend towards all of the primarily Linux dependencies for a lot of software - GNOME 3, Wayland, and now features of X11.
As a primarily linux user: (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell you I feel similiarly.
But until and unless a large percentage of the community starts coughing up money to directly pay devs otherwise, they're going to do what their corporate masters (primarily redhat, but also other tech incumbents) choose to do.
It's the same reason lots of other tech has made it into the linux kernel but taken years to a decade to make it into BSD. If the community isn't ponying up the cash to keep the development in a direction they desire, then some corporation will coopt it and pervert it into something we hate.
It's not the first nor last piece of software we'll see this happening with.
Re:What about non-Linux users? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am displeased with the trend towards all of the primarily Linux dependencies for a lot of software - GNOME 3, Wayland, X11
We had a GNOME 3 dev on here a while ago. Apparently they've been working hard to get the features of GNOME3 working without systemd.
As for X11, it also has this feature to run rootless in Windows. However, that doesn't affect me as a Linux user. I think adding integration with more systems is generally done well on Xorg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know it never ran on IRIX - IRIX uses XSgi. The HP-UX box I currently have access to (which is horribly outdated) is running XFree86. AIX, however, does use X.Org. (BTW, IRIX wasn't EOL until the beginning of this year)
bash-4.2$ /usr/X11R7/bin/Xorg -version
X Window System Version 7.1.1
Release Date: 12 May 2006
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 7.1.1
Build Operating System: AIX IBM
Current Operating System: AIX aix71 1 7 00036A2AD300
Build Date: 07 July 2006
um... not to be gross, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My ass used to sweat like that when I was a teenager. Horribly embarrassing all around but there you have it. Since this image is not presented in smellovision we have no way to know for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace, extend.... (Score:2)
I think we've seen this strategy before.
Basically, it's job security; make it so complex you need to pay for 'support' to make it work.
GNU/Linu-x not GNOME/Lenna-x (Score:5, Funny)
Is Lennart paid by Redhat or by Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you see:
The systemd integration finally allows the X server to run without root privileges, something in the works for a very long time. The non-PCI device improvements mean System-on-a-Chip graphics will work more smoothly, auto-enumerating just like PCI graphics devices do. As covered previously, GLAMOR (the pure OpenGL acceleration backend) has seen quite a bit of improvement, and now works with Xephyr and XWayland.
Re: (Score:2)
The latter. Prior to this change it was impossible to run X as non-root, it took significant work (and a more capable init system) to support non-root X.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you able to explain more?
My impression is that there were 2 issues with non-root X - mode setup and input device management. KMS and DRI2/DRI3 take care of the former, and I'm under the impression that systemd-logind takes care of the latter. But ultimately these are all just kernel interfaces - if systemd-logind has a root-helper and makes a series of kernel calls to manage the input devices, then that same job could be done by some other piece of software.
Again, do you understand the base mechanism
Re: (Score:2)
It also manages access to the display driver and the actual session. And yes, the same job could be done by another piece of software, but none have been written that I am aware of. That is also true of any piece of software, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Nice summary of requirements for non-root X: ehttp://hansdegoede.lvejournal.com/14268.html
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you were building dev releases. And as per patches like http://lists.x.org/archives/xo... [x.org], you needed systemd-logind.
The point is 1.15 couldn't, and 1.16 can with systemd components. I think calling development builds of the 1.16 branch "previously" is quite disingenuous.
Re: X, systemd, and priveleges? (Score:2)
Running X as non-root requires systemd-logind. Currently the only way for the X server to do the device management it needs to run is to either be root or delegate it to systemd-logind. You don't like it? Code up another way, and convince the Xorg, GNOME, and KDE developers to adopt your way.
Systemd is widely adopted because the systemd developers solved real problems with working code.
Re:Well, time to switch to __OTHER_OS__! (Score:4)
Actually, a lot of us, including Linus Torvalds, do submit bug reports and patches to various groups (such as GNOME) that get promptly ignored or rejected because of politics.
And in my case, it's "I was using Linux happily until I tried other operating systems, and realized how horrible the GNU/Linux setup really is"
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll feed the troll. Either X or an X wrapper is suid root. Find the right hole in X, and you've got root. I presume that X or an X wrapper tries to do the best it can, drops capabilities, etc. But it would still be better to not be root at all.