Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X Server 1.6 Gets A Bit Closer To Release

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • X Server 1.6 Gets A Bit Closer To Release

    Phoronix: X Server 1.6 Gets A Bit Closer To Release

    X Server 1.6 was supposed to be released by the end of 2008 as Intel had called for it to be a strictly time-based release. However, the release schedule ended up putting it as a early January release (the 5th of January to be exact)...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzA3Mw

  • #2
    Once released, X Server 1.6 brings [...] Direct Rendering Infrastructure 2 [...] to the desktops of Linux users.
    This is still limited to Intel IGP users, right?

    Comment


    • #3
      I read that Ubuntu already has 1.6. Nvidia just released a driver that supports it a few days ago, ATI has yet to.

      Why can't they just stick with 1.5? Xorg / ATI drivers / whatever distro-specific thingamajig failing on install is a very common problem new users I'm in contact with are encountering.

      Comment


      • #4
        Isn't 1.7 supposed to be out soon according to the original plan? They are really running behind. There really need to be more devs working on the xserver.

        Comment


        • #5
          Do you happen to know if Fedora will be introducing 1.6 in Fedora 10, or waiting for F11?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Vadi View Post
            Why can't they just stick with 1.5?
            Because OSS developers can do forced obsolescence better than their proprietary counterparts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Looking for the Gestalt

              [QUOTE=phoronix;63292]Phoronix: X Server 1.6 Gets A Bit Closer To Release

              X Server 1.6 was supposed to be released by the end of 2008 as Intel had called for it to be a strictly time-based release. However, the release schedule ended up putting it as a early January release (the 5th of January to be exact)...

              There are so many versions and extensions to X, I'd like to see Phoronix do an article that relates all the work going on in X (X11, Mesa, R&R, GEM, ...) I think others like me would like to be educated on how they are dependent, inter-related, the state of each one, and how binary drivers from ATI and Nvidia correlate to them.

              It would be nice to see all this info come together in one article and it seems Phoronix has the expertise to do it.

              Please consider this request Phoronix.

              Comment


              • #8
                DarkCloud, you do realize it would be something like 30 pages long if it were to cover everything? And that it would take weeks to write comprehensively

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yet, it would be an awsome reading ;]

                  I, for one, would really like to know how are the binary blobs different. I remember people stating that these don't use Mesa and work quite a lot differently than normal drivers, but no details are ever mentioned.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by szczerb View Post
                    Yet, it would be an awsome reading ;]

                    I, for one, would really like to know how are the binary blobs different. I remember people stating that these don't use Mesa and work quite a lot differently than normal drivers, but no details are ever mentioned.
                    From what I've understood, the xserver has a big function table with pointers to all the functions. Mesa has a software implementation that is the default, but the proprietary drivers override many more functions than open source drivers. Since all you got are pointers to a blob, I guess there's really not that much useful to say about it other than "they're doing that themselves". That way they can choose to only use part of Mesa in a proprietary/Mesa hybrid.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X