Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
X GUI Software

XFree86 Core Team Disbands 448

mumumu was among the many to write with this news: "XFree86's release engineer David Dawes has announced that "a majority of the XFree86 core team has voted in favour of my proposal to disband the core team". XFree86's News Headline has a short message about it. Why, all of a sudden? What is the successor of the XFree86? Xouvert? freedesktop.org?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XFree86 Core Team Disbands

Comments Filter:
  • From the link... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoneFlower ( 107640 ) <anniethebruce AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:42AM (#7844490) Journal
    "core team was no longer
    representative of the active, experienced and skilled XFree86 developers"

    That leads me to suspect it isn't XFree86 that is dying, just the current core team is giving up their posts- and probably to be reorganized with new members from among the referred to "active, experienced... developers"

    I wouldn't panic yet.
  • by Belisarivs ( 526071 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:43AM (#7844499)
    Is this related to the Cygwin/XFree86 blowup a few months back?
  • by wackybrit ( 321117 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:45AM (#7844508) Homepage Journal
    A lot of big companies still use COBOL, and COBOL is over fifty years old, which means we can keep using X even if it's not being developed anymore. If something is worth using, then it must have a good solid base which can be used for many years to come. We don't need to worry at all for another fifty year or so, when we'll probably need a new system. Why panic now?

    Many systems have lived beyond their original development schedules. Financial software written in COBOL, for example, which has caused no problems at all since it was developed, Windows 3.1 which is still more than good enough for most schools and small businesses and has no security flaws despite all thsi time, and the B programming language, which many an OS kernel is written in.
  • by Esekla ( 453798 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:46AM (#7844522)
    then perhaps it's a good thing as there has clearly been a fair amount of rankling lately.
  • by jabberw0k ( 62554 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:50AM (#7844545) Homepage Journal
    True. Flip side: more than one Fortune 50 company has been thrown into years-long turmoil by replacing thirty-year old Fortran code that "just plain worked" with SAP, whose motto must be "Change your business model to fit our software..." If you hear of a company switching to SAP, you might consider shorting their stock.
  • Re:Why a successor? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:54AM (#7844567)
    Who said the core developers were stopping their work on XFree?
  • by 192939495969798999 ( 58312 ) <info AT devinmoore DOT com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:05AM (#7844609) Homepage Journal
    This brings up a good point: is anyone to maintain xFree86 anymore? Sure, the source is still available, but is the project documented well enough that another team could pick up in a year where this one left off? Interesting questions that the open source community will have to answer if proprietary source is to be defeated once and for all.
  • Re:Why a successor? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zarr ( 724629 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:06AM (#7844611)
    I can't se anything in the article that would indicate that the core developers have stopped working on it. The message by David Dawes gives me the impression that the "core team" and the core deveolpers aren't necessarily the same people.


    If you ask me, xfree86 doesn't need much "inovation". It works great the way it is! Of course, that shouldn't stop other people from taking the xfree code and do radically new stuff with it. If someone manages to come up with something that is significantly better than xfree I'll be more than happy to switch.

  • Re:Why a successor? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:12AM (#7844644)
    > Why would a successor for XFree86 be needed?

    it's not, that's just a bit of sensationalism thanks to herr slashdot. XFree86 is one of those applications that in all honesty has come as far as it will ever need to, and I'll surprised to see if we need any more development on it for another 10 years. Sometimes it's good to just sit back and let the good work that's been done continue, and that's what's happened with XF86

    Proprietary window handlers however like windows and MAC will just keep digging themselves into the ground adding more eye candy and bloat. It's a great time to be a linux dev isn't it!!!!!!!!
  • by Mr Smidge ( 668120 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:20AM (#7844685) Homepage
    (NOT framebuffer because fb doesn't work well with some hardware)

    Purely out of interest, what kind of hardware does the framebuffer not work well on?
  • by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:20AM (#7844687) Homepage
    No, we need more of those people as well.

    You've got to understand, that whatever your archievements are, that doesn't entitle you to behave as a moron. For example, I have great respect for Alan Cox. But, if I ever see him trolling slashdot while I have points, I'm going to mod him down.

    The thing that the X team did were great of course, but lately all I've been hearing of them is that they got lazy, advertised their CVS privileges as if it was some god-given privilege, while not doing almost anything at all with it, and made it difficut for people who were at that time doing much more useful work the possibility of making it easier. I'm very glad to hear that now they finally recognized that they were only stalling the development.

    Having created something Open Source shouldn't mean that you're free to be dictator of that thing. In Open Source this especially makes little sense, because the point of it is the development of a program, not the exhaltation of its authors. I remember that Linus himself said once that if he believes that Linux will advance better without him, he will resign.
  • by labradort ( 220776 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:33AM (#7844771)
    Xfree86.org's website was the only source I could find for this news. It didn't clarify anything:
    Core Team Disbands

    [30 December 2003]

    The XFree86 core team voted to disband itself, effective 31 December 2003.

    Not exactly informative. I think we can say Dawes and friends are the real source of "the sky is falling" syndrome, due to the information vacum.

    You can't blame people from freaking out when there is a lack of information and context!
  • Re:Don't overreact (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Talinom ( 243100 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:50AM (#7844898) Homepage Journal
    or a place where technical discussion happens.

    IANAP (I Am Not A Programmer) by any stretch of the imagination and have absolutely no idea about the nature of the core team, but a phrase like this makes me wonder if it was self destructing. Were I to hear this phrase in a business environment it would indicate to me that it turned into a political quagmire and that direction was defocused and derailed by hard lined vocal factions.

    Could it be they just decided to disagree and split up because it just wasn't worth it any more?
  • by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @11:25AM (#7845180) Homepage Journal
    fragmentation could be a real concern.

    Multiple X implementations for Linux is not a problem. In fact it could be an advantage. The claim that it becomes harder for vendors like ATI and NVidia to target the platform is of course wrong. They only have to support one of them. So what if we end up in a situation where ATI users will need one X server and NVidia users will need another X server? As long as both X servers implement the correct protocol. Different features of course could be a problem to some extent, but since we are talking about different hardware it's obvious, that there will be differences. If it is going to happen, I hope both forks stay open (is that required by the license used by XFree86?), at least if it is open a new branch can try to merge the two if divergence become too much.
  • by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:09PM (#7845564)
    I think we really need a new X server, dedicated to desktop use. It looks like the RENDER model is going to be the primary graphics model these days and applications expect both multithreading and lots of bitmap storage from the X server.

    Yet, the existing X server originated out of a code base that highly optimized the traditional X11 graphics model and assumed a completely different mix of clients and applications. That means that a lot of complexity in the existing server is devoted to optimizing things few people still care about.

    A new implementation could replace that code with simple, generic implementations and focus on making the stuff that everybody uses these days efficient.

    It may also be worth using C++ for such a new X server. That's not because C++ is "object oriented", but because C++ standardizes a number of facilities that big software systems need, like exceptions and resource cleanup, but for which C has no single standard.

    Actually, at the same time, it might also be good to create a second, minimal X server from scratch that is aimed at handhelds and machines with very limited resources. Some existing work on such servers is based on XFree86, but I suspect one might be able to cut things down to an X server that gets by with 100-200k of code and data with careful coding and choice of features.
  • by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <.tms. .at. .infamous.net.> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:17PM (#7845659) Homepage
    It is a slow and poorly designed monolith that often requires considerable chiseling and hacking in order to work with even the most simple of 3D games.

    Then don't use it for games. Use libsdl [libsdl.org] or something similar.

    X isn't for 3D games. X - with its wonderful network transparancy - is for people who like to use computers to get work done.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:25PM (#7845741) Journal
    I suspect many people (ie the CIO we are trying to win over) will react badly to this.

    This happens all the time in both the closed world and the OSS world.
    Remember the big "tiff" between Alan and Linus? It was ridiculus that the press picked it up.
    Likewise, at the large companies that I have worked at are far worse than what is happening. At USWest, a VP had to be physically restrained and removed from the premise, and only THEN was fired (he was later found to have a handgun in his desk, but that little info was kinda kept quiet).
  • by JianTian13 ( 525365 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:06PM (#7846066) Homepage
    Jesus Fucking Christ. How many times are people going to trot this shit out?

    /flame on

    You haven't been using Linux or X very long, have you? Or if you have, how have you failed to notice how many times someone says "X is slow/boated/sux for 3d/etc"? If you did, did you ever follow the discussion after that point, or did you just say, "Yep, I agree with them, I can stop reading now"?

    Because if you had, how did you miss the amazingly lucid explanations as to just why X does not suck; just how incredibly extensible it is; or how it does not suck at 3d, but that the real problem lies in the card manufacturers who won't release the necessary specs to allow open driver development? No, really. The fundamental problem with 3D driver development is that the card manufacturers have a limited pool of developers who can only acquire so much knowledge/expertise, and can only spend so much time developing drivers for each platform. How much better would things be if they would allow more experienced X devs to look at their code and suggest or write some improvements? We know the answer to this question; if you don't, what are you doing using Free Software?

    /flame off

    X works. X works well. X, properly equipped with the right drivers, even does 3d well. If you can't configure it yourself (no shame there; I was scared as hell the first time *I* did it), there's all these nice distros from RedHat (oops, Fedora), SuSE, Mandrake, even Debian that have tools to do it for you.

    Allright, I'm done. Back to browsing at +3...
  • freedesktop.org (Score:5, Interesting)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:17PM (#7846172)
    The fdo.o X server is most likely going to be the successor to XFree86, even if development of XF86 continues. They fd.o X server project is led by Keith Packard, who did a lot of the work on Render and Xft, basically bringing XFree86 into the 20th century. He is also getting help from people who really know what they are doing, like Jim Gettys. They are working on the following features:

    - A core X server based on the lightweight kdrive codebase (formerly TinyX).
    - Back-buffering of all windows, like OS X. This will enable OS X-style fancy window effects like shadows and whatnot.
    - OpenGL accelerated 2D rendering. This is a big step up from Apple's system, because it will accelerate actual drawing via OpenGL, not just window compositing. As a result of this, there is a lot of talk about seperating OpenGL from the X server, and allowing the X server to be just another OpenGL app running on top of a low-level OpenGL acceleration layer.
  • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:35PM (#7846339)
    Not just the software, but I mean the development. It's development by committee. Look at the rapid pace of the Linux kernel--headed by one guy.

    Compare to XFree86 and its Board of Directors, Consortium, Core team, etc. And then people wonder why there is frustration at the slow pace of development. I'm not even talking about retardedly simple things like RandR (a feature even Windows 95 had close to a decade ago).
  • Re:So Keith won? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Deusy ( 455433 ) <charlieNO@SPAMvexi.org> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @02:19PM (#7846781) Homepage
    Wasn't this what Keith Packard et.al wanted?

    And from where did you draw that conclusion?

    Keith wanted XFree to be more organised in respect to pushing new development horizons and bringing in new developers. He only started his own X server because he was forced to do so.

    Keith wants to hack on an advanced X system. He would have been quite happy to do so under XFree only they didn't let him. When you have Windows users (literally) dictating the direction of a primarily *nix project, then you know there is a problem with project structure.

    Don't jump to conclusions. Just because Keith 'et al' weren't happy with the way XFree was being run, doesn't mean he had an agenda.

    It's not a game. Nobody won. In fact, in the short term, recent events mean that really everybody has lost. Fortunately, with the way X server is starting to shape out, we'll all have won in the future when we have an excellent X server for us to use.
  • by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @02:30PM (#7846894)
    I don't really see X being that out of date. It doesn't support transparency and shadows, but aren't those things just eye candy? If it was 2005, and Longhorn had fully OpenGL-accelerated drawing with incredibly rich graphics in apps, and X was still where it is now, then yes, it would be behind. But fortunately, it looks like we'll have Longhorn's features sometime late in 2004, way before Longhorn even comes out :)

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...