No announcement yet.

X.Org 7.4 Creeps Closer To Release

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    nokia, being a mostly portable device oriented, has probably little interest in mainline X, but maybe some more embedded oriented branches of it would be in its field of interest.


    • #12
      at least, they are *paying* some devs to work on X (see presentations from xdc..). They need a small, fast x-server for their embedded devices. and mpx is necessary for multi-touch in mobile devices.
      do you see what i mean?


      • #13
        How many of the people here suggesting that companies hire programmers to work on X have donated ($) to X themselves?


        • #14
          What I see is a lack of resources in, specially in certain topics.

 is quite complex and certain stuff is difficult to priorize, as various components could be equally important because working in the same topic instead being separate ones. I found pathetic that companies that benefit from not support developers in a more than enough way, as is one of the most important projects for UNIX and not just for the Open Source ones.

          Important stuff that needs to have more development resources is the GEM/TTM stuff for memory management. The problem here is that there are some kind of debate about what one is better (see here for a small example) and that is making the adoption a lot longer than expected, so I think there must be some kind of official and technical debate between the responsible parts and end with some kind of consensus instead a fight that benefits nobody.

          For me the team is maybe being more worried in not so important stuff and forgetting more important ones, but that could not happen if they had some more resources to use.

          There are another big problem and it's that subprojects like radeon and nouveau working with too few resources and even doing amazing things, but it's clear that they need *A LOT* more support than they have now too.


          • #15
            true. as far as i know, kernel devs help developping ttm. but i don't unterstand why intel have to "fork" (kind of) it with their gem. it doesn't have a performance improvement (yet?), it just costs time & energy. i thought that ttm is a good thing, more and more drivers could use it as a "base"/part, everything seems to be good^^...


            • #16
              Even if one is worser or better, there finally can be one (like the inmortals, hehe). They better do some technical and formal discussion instead making a hostile alternative that will benefit nobody and will make the adoption of the concept used by both a lot longer than expected.

              This is hardware and kernel stuff, not just an application where a fork or alternative isn't a problem at all. The work they use for making two separate versions of something with similar concept could be made with the double of available resources and even better if all parts finally end with some kind of common design that suits everybody (like in democracy).