Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,816

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    814

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Outgoing farts?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filiprino View Post
    Outgoing farts?
    Better outgoing than incoming.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filiprino View Post
    Outgoing farts?
    Like this, but with farts.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    336

    Default

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    13

    Default

    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...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Which was the other one that failed?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •