Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#571

Post by ernst_klim »

IvyMike wrote: post #563
ernst_klim wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>May be it's time for people to be against new things. Maybe it's time for people to stop whining in the internet and start writing code? X.org code is there, support it, contribute to it, improve it if you want to. > infamous heartbleed bug Yeah. Because real open source is like that: millions are arguing in forums, few write code. And that's the problem Wayland is trying to solve BTW, by removing quite a lot of obs…

> Writing things from scratch is usually good, Joel Spolsky wrote a good argument to the contrary: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-... Any good examples of large projects where a rewrite from scratch has been good?

> It’s important to remember that when you start from scratch there is absolutely no reason to believe that you are going to do a better job

This is ridiculous. Maybe that's applicable in a very short timescale, but definitely not to the protocol which appeared in 1984.

There is a thing called progress, people invent quite a lot through the years: type systems, patterns, design ideas. Not to mention that hardware has changed quite a lot through the years: X11 was done in the age of terminals and absence of hardware acceleration.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#572

Post by MayeulC »

hansvm wrote: post #311
sokoloff wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it’s been a while since 1Mbps was “quite a bit of bandwidth”, even for WAN connections.

Outside of major metros, in the US a lot of towns only offer up to 5Mbps down, and only then if you pay out the nose. Not sure if it matters for X forwarding, but upload caps are also ridiculously low even on otherwise reasonable connections.

Pretty much this. With 5 Mbps down on ADSL, you can expect 300 to 500 kbps up. It can be hard to remote connect home under those conditions.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#573

Post by MayeulC »

MayeulC wrote: post #199
jleahy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I routinely use modern X applications running on a remote (25 miles) machine, all day long as part of my job. It works flawlessly if you have a reasonable amount of bandwidth and reasonable latency. Sure, it doesn’t work over dial-up.

Honestly, X forwarding doesn't work that well in my experience, unless you have a very stable connection, with quite a bit of bandwidth (~1Mbps at the very least). I've had more success using xpra for forwarding, as I'm often connecting over Wi-Fi (hostel, campus rooms...). It's also rather complicated to set-up on the server side (xauth, magic cookie, etc). waypipe, on the other hand, was a breeze to use, even thoug…

> tried with Firefox and 500Mbps of upload capacity

That should have been 500 kbps

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#574

Post by cannedslime »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #428
cannedslime wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think our sight is all a little different. I can clearly see 50/60hz strobing in light when others can't. Back in the old CRT days I would get strained eye sight and nausea if I worked at monitors running below 85hz, unless it had long lasting phosphors like the old monochrome CRTs.

Good LCDs are static unless you're running a dvi-vga-displayport-vga-hdmi dongle monster where the pixels are inevitably shifting a bit every instant. What you're more likely to be seeing is PWM backlight flickering at you. If it's indeed the LCD and not the backlight, pray tell us the model so we don't end up buying it.

I dont have this problem with LCDs...

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#575

Post by enriquto »

phkahler wrote: post #527
p_l wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to how XWayland works, a lot of applications (sometimes critical ones) won't work under XWayland ever (pretty much everything that works on interaction between X clients fails hard).

>> pretty much everything that works on interaction between X clients fails hard It's supposed to fail hard. That isnt just a security hole in X, it's a total lack of security. The notion that any app should be able to monitor or manipulate any other app is archaic and wrong from a security perspective.

There they go htop, netcat, kill, and the whole unix pipe system. No, thanks. Programs monitoring other programs is the very essence of computing for us greybeards, and you will take this from our cold, dead hands!

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#576

Post by jitendrac »

Rather I believe, X.org server is really stable. I think its in a stage where it can be leftout without updates for years. For me its stable, works fine and as expected. I don't mind long duration updates with stable systems.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#577

Post by vnlab »

sergeykish wrote: post #558
neurostimulant wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took python community 10 years to migrate to python 3, and the migration process from python 2 to python 3, while tedious, is certainly a lot easier than porting a gui app from xorg to wayland. It could take some time until most app developers finally migrated their apps from xorg to wayland.

Python 3 changed nothing * print is function * string is unicode by default Should have been clean and easy migration path # python 2 from __future__ import print_function print(u"foo") u"" # was u"" b"" # was "" But u"" was not supported in Python 3 until PEP 414 (python 3.3) [1]. That's four years [2]: Python 3.0.0 Dec. 3, 2008 Python 3.3.0 Sept. 29, 2012 Ruby string switched from codebytes to codepoints with encod…

> Python 3 changed nothing.

Sorry, have you tried to maintain a C extension for both 2/3? Or a unicode heavy application?

This is a silly statement, there's a reason that major packages took a decade to migrate. There are thousands of little details that are incompatible.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#578

Post by rleigh »

tupputuppu wrote: post #145
gjvc wrote: post #109

This is a rather worrying stance to be pushing on something which is relied upon day in and day out. The phoronix author has lost credibility with me by the opinion expressed in this article. With this kind of FUD, it is no wonder Linux has a hard time being accepted on the desktop. What enterprises -- and everyday developers like me -- need, is a stable desktop to run IDEs and the like. As an example, Debian with Xo…

Apologies, but I don't understand your comment. The original article said X.org is unmaintained. Your comment basically replied "it works for me and I like it, Wayland doesn't cut it". Sure - great opinion - but doesn't change the state of the world, which is that X.org is unmaintained and all the real development firepower has moved on to Wayland. We can all have opinions and I kind of agree with yours, but the arti…

It doesn't matter one jot that the "development firepower" has moved on.

We have a 30+ year legacy of using X11. I know the CADT development model doesn't care about that. But all the people using X11-based applications do care. We aren't going to move off X11 on the whim of people who care more about "the new shiny" than they do about the real-world needs of people who use this stuff to run their businesses.

These people have done more to destroy the viability of Linux as a desktop platform over the last 15 years than anything else.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#579

Post by rleigh »

formerly_proven wrote: post #248
Athas wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it know what scaling factor you want?

The standard has been ~100 DPI, so a 200 DPI display should by default get 200 % scaling with no extra configuration needed.

The "standard" for anything today should be the physical display size divided by the pixel count to give the exact resolution for X and Y in DPI. Scaling should be relative to that physically correct resolution.

We've inherited a lot of baggage and odd conventions, some of which were wrong to begin with. I don't think we should be carrying on with it if we can do better. Having these scaling factors directly correspond to physical reality would be a start.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#580

Post by majewsky »

phkahler wrote: post #512
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #422

What looks like "typical Linux geeks being geeks" with this situation: 1) the old, mostly working thing is being abandoned in favor of 2) that new thing which doesn't work in so many cases it's laughable, even after 11 years. How many years was it between the concept of X and a working release at Palo Alto? Note that the new situation is so perfect for passing the buck from the windowing system to the compositors, an…

>> that new thing which doesn't work in so many cases it's laughable, even after 11 years. I've been using Wayland for years now and it works great. The one and only thing I use X for is OBS studio because they're still working out the window capture stuff, which BTW mean poking the right hole through security that X doesnt even have. Most the things that don't work well on Wayland are old junk.

Another problematic area is input method editors, mostly because IMEs and applications using them have not implemented the respective protocols on Wayland yet.
Post reply on HN