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

671–680 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#671

Post by mrob »

kllrnohj wrote: post #589
mrob wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's no reason to add another layer of avoidable compositing.

You're not. It's already there and already happening. The difference is just we all stop pretending anyone is doing anything else. As in, kill the terrible X vector crap, and add reliable compositing APIs so things like video playback in apps stops being so incredibly bad (see video in browsers sucking in linux and not anywhere else). You know, catch up to what literally everything else is doing. Windows, MacOS, iOS,…

Which Wayland compositor allows me to exclusively use front buffer rendering without vsync?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#672

Post by the_why_of_y »

frank2 wrote: post #665
the_why_of_y wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the innovations since the 1980s when X was designed are shared libraries, so you can have libweston and wlroots now https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots

X11 used shared libraries since its beginning in the 1980s.

SunOS paper about shared libraries, 1987

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.37.9...

SunOS 4.0 lists "dynamic linking" as new feature, released 1988

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOS

AT&T System V Release 3 got shared libraries in 1986

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_V_Release_4#SVR3

While the first X11 release was in 1987, the fundamental architecture was designed already since 1984, and this architecture includes a heavyweight server that implements things that in most other window systems are done client-side.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#674

Post by utxaa »

pjmlp wrote: post #567
wegs wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newer isn't better-designed. Unix was really well-designed, compared to so much of the modern stuff, and it does everything I need. Nineties Linux was a nice Unix. I wish we hadn't spent the past quarter-century turning it into nineties Windows, with layers upon layers upon layers of cruft. I don't get why Wayland is slow, when Enlightenment was fast on machines with 32MB of RAM, a 3dfx Voodoo, a spinning HDD, and a…

> Unix was really well-designed, Not really, it is just a pile of hacks on top of hacks, starting by everything is a file until one needs to use sockets.

what isn't a pile of hacks?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#675

Post by utxaa »

wegs wrote: post #586
nialv7 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it really arrogant to claim "this software does everything I need, so it should never change", while in reality you are but an infinitesimally small part of the user base said software has to support. Sure, all the software can stay where they are if all the developers had to serve is you. But that is just not the reality.

There isn't a magical different userbase Linux has to serve which has somehow bizarre needs not served by thoughtfully-designed older software, but which newer, poorly-designed software somehow meets. Yes, we need a newer web browser, but that could run on old-school Linux/Unix just fine. Aside from that, there isn't anything wrong with nineties Linux which couldn't have been brought up to modern standards with a bit…

i agree with your point. however alsa needed a multiplexing layer, or the equivalent. whereas pulse was the answer i don't know.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#676

Post by noobermin »

ernst_klim wrote: post #571
IvyMike wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your last comment is a true statement but it isn't an argument. Just because X11 was done in the age of terminals and before gpus existed doesn't seem to support your point unless "old = bad" in your view. I understand how type systems can help, some patterns are good, but some of those ideas existed before X11 actually, so no period of time has a monopoly on good ideas.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#677

Post by wegs »

sergeykish wrote: post #592
wegs wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a magical different userbase Linux has to serve which has somehow bizarre needs not served by thoughtfully-designed older software, but which newer, poorly-designed software somehow meets. Yes, we need a newer web browser, but that could run on old-school Linux/Unix just fine. Aside from that, there isn't anything wrong with nineties Linux which couldn't have been brought up to modern standards with a bit…

Maybe you should fine community that shares your views. I don't use pulseaudio, networkmanager, desktop environment, works perfectly in Arch Linux [1]. Arch has great wiki, it is correct. System is quite transparent. I am fine with systemd but, for example, Void Linux [2] uses runit, Alpine Linux [3] uses OpenRC and is compiled statically. Arch Linux pacman serves my needs perfectly, it is quick, it shows only releva…

A bit of poking suggests:

1) I'm not ready to jump installed systems to arch right now.

2) Next system I install will probably try arch.

Thank you!

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#678

Post by jacob019 »

pjmlp wrote: post #567
wegs wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newer isn't better-designed. Unix was really well-designed, compared to so much of the modern stuff, and it does everything I need. Nineties Linux was a nice Unix. I wish we hadn't spent the past quarter-century turning it into nineties Windows, with layers upon layers upon layers of cruft. I don't get why Wayland is slow, when Enlightenment was fast on machines with 32MB of RAM, a 3dfx Voodoo, a spinning HDD, and a…

> Unix was really well-designed, Not really, it is just a pile of hacks on top of hacks, starting by everything is a file until one needs to use sockets.

unix sockets are files

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#680

Post by sergeykish »

utxaa wrote: post #673
sergeykish wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you would preach but you would not contribute

you mean i would predict but not contribute? yes.

no, like in "preach the end of the world", contribution and prediction requires intimate knowledge, preaching does not
Post reply on HN