X.Org Server To See New CI-Driven Automated Release Cycles, Big Version Numbers

[nanonyme]

A new release of XWayland is overdue, there are several important bug fixes and improvements outstanding due to the non existent X.org releases :-(

I totally agree and I think developers do too. Hence why this new way of releasing was chosen.

[starshipeleven]

Not everything runs linux, but does use X11

What is not running Linux and using X11? I thought the overwhelming majority of BSDs were headless server systems.

X11 is pretty stable and completely fleshed out as a protocol,

It's also pretty useless as a whole. What modern applications use of it is a hack of a subset.

X11 was not designed for applications pre-rendering their stuff and sending it frames, or even send stuff to a compositor that sends it a full desktop frame.
It was supposed to be the only one doing the rendering.

[TheOne]

Maybe code can be removed? Maybe the code base for X.Org can be reduced?
Or a build flag to build a minimal X.Org Server with only the bare minimum functionality needed for XWayland to work.

I remember phoronix once posted about some company that took X server and optimized it by stripping lots of components and they even showed some benchmarks about how fast it processed drawings in comparison to regular X, but I don't remember how it was called... I do remember they where selling their modified X server. How it was called!!! ggrr , brain fog! If these guys released their modifications maybe X would be better.

[starshipeleven]

Maybe code can be removed?

No

Maybe the code base for X.Org can be reduced?

No

Or a build flag to build a minimal X.Org Server with only the bare minimum functionality needed for XWayland to work.

Useless.
XWayland needs to be more or less as fully featured as Xorg, as it is supposed to provide the same interfaces to applications.

[starshipeleven]

I remember phoronix once posted about some company that took X server and optimized it by stripping lots of components and they even showed some benchmarks about how fast it processed drawings in comparison to regular X, but I don't remember how it was called... I do remember they where selling their modified X server. How it was called!!! ggrr , brain fog! If these guys released their modifications maybe X would be better.

Afaik the only decent X server that is not fully compliant (i.e. drops support for ancient crap API that is not used anymore but is technically still part of the spec) but can run all modern applications is Arcan.

[nuetzel]

I remember phoronix once posted about some company that took X server and optimized it by stripping lots of components and they even showed some benchmarks about how fast it processed drawings in comparison to regular X, but I don't remember how it was called... I do remember they where selling their modified X server. How it was called!!! ggrr , brain fog! If these guys released their modifications maybe X would be better.

Accelerated-X. - The box is in our basement.
Firm's name moved to Xi Graphics Inc https://www.xig.com/
Matrox Millennium II (4+4 = 8 MB WRAM) + self compiled ol(v)wm times...

Maybe we (the owner of some licenses) should ask...?

[kylew77]

What is not running Linux and using X11? I thought the overwhelming majority of BSDs were headless server systems.

There are a lot of OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD desktop users. Heck there are even FreeBSD "distros" such as ghostBSD and whatever they are calling PC-BSD this week. Not to mention there are still Unix workstations such as HP-UX, Solaris (and its open source derivative Illuminos), and AIX that may need a X session from time to time. Linux may command the lion's share of the market but they are not alone in the world. Also, even if you were to discount the BSDs and commercial Unixen there are a lot of Linux users that use window managers and not bloated desktops like Gnome or KDE. You have to twist my arm to use Gnome 3+, I much prefer XFCE or fluxbox or even a tiling window manager over Gnome 3.

[starshipeleven]

There are a lot of OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD desktop users.

"a lot" requires some citation. I know that they have a GUI but afaik most of BSD userbase is in server or NAS or firewall or other appliances, not on desktop.

[boxie]

"a lot" requires some citation. I know that they have a GUI but afaik most of BSD userbase is in server or NAS or firewall or other appliances, not on desktop.

I see you are adopting old mate Lennarts view of the OSS world :P *runs*

[starshipeleven]

I see you are adopting old mate Lennarts view of the OSS world :P *runs*

Ah come on, that's just personal experience. It's VERY rare to encunter someone with Linux on a laptop and I never seen a BSD user on a Laptop in my whole life, while if I mention FreeNAS or PFsense in certain circles it's well-known and respected.