Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sadly, Two X.Org GSoC Projects Already Failed

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

  • Sadly, Two X.Org GSoC Projects Already Failed

    Phoronix: Sadly, Two X.Org GSoC Projects Already Failed

    Two Google Summer of Code projects for the X.Org Foundation have already failed...

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

  • #2
    I guess most of us miss new X.org features like outgoing farts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Outgoing farts?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
        Outgoing farts?
        Better outgoing than incoming.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
          Outgoing farts?
          Like this, but with farts.

          Comment


          • #6
            One of the projects that failed was the the lightweight Qt Quick compositing window manager effort.
            Good. Worthless projects deserve to die.

            Comment


            • #7
              Maybe i'm in the minority but I think what X needs is aggressive refactoring and code cleanup in the name of maintainability. Backwards compatibility and network transparency are its strongest assets I think. Or at least, any X replacement should make those features first class citizens. We use network forwarding every day in particular, and on relatively old hardware too. It's usable even on a crappy 100 megabit network...

              Comment


              • #8
                Which was the other one that failed?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                  Which was the other one that failed?
                  Probably tesselation support in mesa, i think i heard that guy went missing without giving notice. Another volunteer has asked to start working on it, hopefully he makes better progress.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BradN View Post
                    Maybe i'm in the minority but I think what X needs is aggressive refactoring and code cleanup in the name of maintainability. Backwards compatibility and network transparency are its strongest assets I think. Or at least, any X replacement should make those features first class citizens. We use network forwarding every day in particular, and on relatively old hardware too. It's usable even on a crappy 100 megabit network...
                    Wayland. XWayland will handle backwards compatibility, Wayland can also do networking better than X.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BradN View Post
                      We use network forwarding every day in particular, and on relatively old hardware too. It's usable even on a crappy 100 megabit network...
                      Is this some kind of joke? What kind of system could possibly fail on a 100mb network, it would have to be awful.
                      Last edited by smitty3268; 06-27-2014, 03:25 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why is everyone so negative about these projets? I see only one thats is for X Server (QtQuick compositor). Rest are Mesa/Wayland projects, and you want them to fail?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by magika View Post
                          Why is everyone so negative about these projets? I see only one thats is for X Server (QtQuick compositor). Rest are Mesa/Wayland projects, and you want them to fail?
                          Complete cluelessness and a total inability to perform basic reasoning.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BradN View Post
                            Maybe i'm in the minority but I think what X needs is aggressive refactoring and code cleanup in the name of maintainability. Backwards compatibility and network transparency are its strongest assets I think. Or at least, any X replacement should make those features first class citizens. We use network forwarding every day in particular, and on relatively old hardware too. It's usable even on a crappy 100 megabit network...
                            I don't know how many times it has to be said, but modern X's components (DRI, etc) are NOT network transparent anymore! It is Network Capable, just like Wayland. If you want to use X.org's Network Transparency, you pretty much have to use it's oldest components that are still "maintained".

                            As for backwards compatibility, I think there needs to be a limit. Like, you can't remove a feature added 3 major releases ago or less. With that, we'd be able to clean up old crap nobody uses in newer releases, while keeping AT LEAST 3 major versions with a feature available for those who need it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                              while keeping AT LEAST 3 major versions with a feature available for those who need it.
                              So we keep features from X9, X10, X11 ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X