Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: The X.Org Server's GLX Is Being Rewritten

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,611

    Default The X.Org Server's GLX Is Being Rewritten

    Phoronix: The X.Org Server's GLX Is Being Rewritten

    While most developers are focused around new innovations for Wayland (or Mir), there's still life ahead for the X.Org Server in maintaining legacy support and other cases where the xorg-server will not die for years to come. In improving the X.Org Server, Adam Jackson at Red Hat has been working on rewriting the GLX portion of the X.Org Server...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ2OTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,023

    Default Great

    Great, keep reducing the X.org codebase, make it slimmer, leaner and cleaner!

    Refactor code and remove duplicate and redundant code.
    Get rid of legacy stuff.

    libgl needs to be fixed to not depend on glx though.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Why does that Mir thing have to be mentioned in every article? This has nothing to do with Mir!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    I find something like this to be a good opportunity to move to X12, especially if this has a probability of breaking current xorg drivers. On the other hand, there are other things done in the past few years that could have qualified for switching to X12, such as xinput2. I feel like if X12 does ever get released, it will be relatively arbitrary, much like the linux kernel hitting 3.0. Much like X11, the linux kernel had several opportunities to ditch the 2.6 series. IMO, the switch to udev would've been a good time to do so (and even then, it should have been named 2.8).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I find something like this to be a good opportunity to move to X12, especially if this has a probability of breaking current xorg drivers. On the other hand, there are other things done in the past few years that could have qualified for switching to X12, such as xinput2. I feel like if X12 does ever get released, it will be relatively arbitrary, much like the linux kernel hitting 3.0. Much like X11, the linux kernel had several opportunities to ditch the 2.6 series. IMO, the switch to udev would've been a good time to do so (and even then, it should have been named 2.8).
    Effectively X12 is Wayland.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3wu53r View Post
    Effectively X12 is Wayland.
    Wayland is effectively X11's replacement, but considering how architecturally different wayland is, I would not classify it as a "successor".

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Great, keep reducing the X.org codebase, make it slimmer, leaner and cleaner!

    Refactor code and remove duplicate and redundant code.
    Get rid of legacy stuff.
    +1

    Especially when working towards making Xorg legacy to the post X11 era.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I find something like this to be a good opportunity to move to X12, especially if this has a probability of breaking current xorg drivers. On the other hand, there are other things done in the past few years that could have qualified for switching to X12, such as xinput2. I feel like if X12 does ever get released, it will be relatively arbitrary, much like the linux kernel hitting 3.0. Much like X11, the linux kernel had several opportunities to ditch the 2.6 series. IMO, the switch to udev would've been a good time to do so (and even then, it should have been named 2.8).
    I think you're conflating X11 the protocol with Xorg the implementation. Nothing that's being done here represents a change to the X11 protocol... it's just changing the implementation and some of the protocol extensions....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I find something like this to be a good opportunity to move to X12, especially if this has a probability of breaking current xorg drivers.
    If we bumped the X version every time we changed Xorg driver ABI, we'd be on X25 by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I feel like if X12 does ever get released, it will be relatively arbitrary, much like the linux kernel hitting 3.0.
    It would be because we changed the protocol between the X server and client applications in an incompatible way and no longer supported the old applications without some sort of compatibility shim. So far, we've gotten away with just adding extensions to add/replace functionality and not removing/breaking anything in the core protocol, though we've kept a wishlist of things to change if we ever do decide to make an X12.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanc View Post
    If we bumped the X version every time we changed Xorg driver ABI, we'd be on X25 by now.
    Thank god there are still sane software people in the world. If Chrome's and FF's version inflation spread there too, we'd indeed have X25 :P

Posting Permissions

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