Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: X.Org Server Development Process Is Questioned

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,894

    Default X.Org Server Development Process Is Questioned

    Phoronix: X.Org Server Development Process Is Questioned

    For the past few years the X.Org Server has managed to get back on track for being released bi-annually and without too many delays. However, the server has also fallen into a habit where it's being released without all of the "blocker bugs" being cleared...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,060

    Default

    I wish the development was more effective so we had less bugs.

    And that we can finally get things like XWayland and running X.org Server on Linux without superuser privileges.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    i think duct taping a broken protocol is the problem. if they fixed it twenty years ago when NeWs came out, everything would have been fine. and don't tell me about the nostalgia bull malarkey that it was advanced for its time and has served well. anyone who has read the Unix Hater's Handbooks knows that it was broken even back then. The biggest X11 haters are probably the veteran devs that worked on it. Saying that X11 is a beautiful thing is like saying that monolithic kernels are great because Linux runs supercomputers and has "served well".
    The sad part is that all those dev hours wasted on duct tape are now down the drain, because Wayland is gonna replace things anyway.

    "Well ... Keith ... X is his pet project and he perfectly fits the role of the dictator which does not care a lot."

    The problem is deeper than that. Software development costs money. The big corps are not interested in making Linux into a great desktop. They are interested in running clustered LAMP servers in a cooled datacenter. It's not an accident that the audio and graphics stacks blow baby chucks on Linux and BSDs. I don't need a f***** low latency audio mixer on a facebook server. Our only hope is that a benevolent freetard like shuttleworth would pay these things out of this personal checkbook. So far it seems that he wants to take the billions to his grave.
    Last edited by garegin; 02-24-2013 at 03:55 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    And that we can finally get things like XWayland and running X.org Server on Linux without superuser privileges.
    XWayland is entirely down to the Wayland developers (including me) failing to fully complete the window manager split and get a final protocol merged. The root problem is down to the lack of revoke() support in the kernel, unless you like everyone being able to snoop all your passwords.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post
    XWayland is entirely down to the Wayland developers (including me) failing to fully complete the window manager split and get a final protocol merged. The root problem is down to the lack of revoke() support in the kernel, unless you like everyone being able to snoop all your passwords.
    Basic LWN link in case anyone wnats to know what revoke() is: http://lwn.net/Articles/192632/

    Story however was from 2006--7years ago. So is there actually any pressure being placed upon the kernel devs (or you / Wayland devs) to get INTO the kernel is or is it the type of thing where everyones just kind of like "Well yeah we need it...but its not at the top of our priority list right now."

    Note: not calling you out specifically, Daniel, I saw the linux.conf.au video a few times so I know your own project list is quite a few items long cuz of Xorg / Wayland / Weston stuff, I just mean the Wayland devs as a whole.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,060

    Default revoke()

    Why does not Linux have a revoke() after all these years?
    There already been patches committed to add this, why have it not been merged?

    What other operating systems or kernels beside Linux does have revoke() support?
    I heard Solaris has it, can't we just port that over to Linux?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,060

    Default

    revoke() is available in BSD.
    http://man.cx/revoke%282%29

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Why does not Linux have a revoke() after all these years?
    There already been patches committed to add this, why have it not been merged?
    They don't cover all the corner cases, some of which are viciously hard to deal with. To be honest, I think the best course of action would be an input-specific revoke(), but last time that got proposed, it got shot down in LKML internal bitchfights.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I wish the development was more effective so we had less bugs.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Well ... Keith ... X is his pet project and he perfectly fits the role of the dictator which does not care a lot.
    a good example is the x rendering extension - it is fundamentally broken, and it was pretty soon obvious it was a stupid design.
    but he did not even care, let users and driver developers suffer with the misconceptions he did back in 2000

Posting Permissions

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