which x server?

CaSBoY · 01-28-2006, 04:36 AM

hello,

which x server do you prefer? x.org or xfree, because i can't choose...

cs-cam · 01-28-2006, 04:58 AM

It's such a tough choice, I know. Kind of like when you don't know whether you feel like a red or white wine after work. It's those choices that cause real stress, work is just a minor side effect.

Use X.org and eat Smacky Smores.

foo_bar_foo · 01-28-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaSBoY

hello,

which x server do you prefer? x.org or xfree, because i can't choose...

i still use xfree because its alot more stable.

spooon · 01-28-2006, 03:10 PM

Almost all Linux/Unix distros and almost all the developers from XFree86 have switched over to X.org. So it's a continuation of XFree86 as the de facto implementation of X.

foo_bar_foo · 01-28-2006, 06:00 PM

yes vendors have switched and some developers have switched,
BUT
X.org is just another incarnation of a megacorporation vendor consortium originaly controlling X and constructed to meet vendor's monetary needs. Now newly cloaked in fake rhetoric about 'freedom'.(sound familiar ?)
Vendors have figured out how to buy developers and
It's has been simply amazing to see what some Linux people will do for a development contract.
It should be no surprise what vendors will do secretly under the table with contracts to buy developers and controll x. Don't ask too many questions about which X.org organizers or developers are getting paid by which vendor, or the fact that xorg has been just copying xfree for many years while it accepted it's big contracts for it's "proprietary" x implementation. that's none of our business according to X.org organizers. xorg is just an inocent fork of xfree over a license issue (yea right !)
Just be a good Linux use and allow them to
subvert X and Linux for their business strategy. Which is exactly why xfree was forked from x consortium in the first place and exactly why we should all use only xfree.

KimVette · 01-28-2006, 07:53 PM

X.org is by the folks who actually build XFree86. New folks in the XFree86 team started bickering over licensing (one of the founders essentially wanted an indirect advertisement to his commercial X server) so the rest of the original core team forked off. XFree86 has been stagnant while Xorg has been pushing steadily ahead.

Quote:

http://cbbrowne.com/info/x.html

1.1. The Politics

The history of X has involved a fair bit of politics. In the "ancient" past, X was developed at MIT as one of the components of Project Athena. It was then managed by the X Consortium. When various Unix things started shifting in various directions, management of the X standard was taken over by The Open Group.

The active ongoing development of X, particularly on free OS platforms, took place through the XFree86 Project, from about the mid '90s until 2003.

In 2003, there were some disputes amongst developers, as well as a controversial change of licensing. Many of the developers have reformed behind a reformed X.org . The publicly stated concerns have typically surrounded the questions: "Why did you change the license, and what exactly does it mean?" It is, however, more realistic to regard this as a controversy over the increasingly closed "governance" of The XFree86 Project Inc. In effect, the concern isn't so much over the details of the license, but rather over the fact that the organization surrounding the software has become way less transparent, and, by their reluctance to explain what they intended by the license changes, have introduced what are really organizational risks that others are choosing to reject.

In 2004, most major Linux distributions opted not to distribute XFree86 4.4, including Red Hat , Mandriva , Debian, and Gentoo , as well as OpenBSD . In 2005, the X.org release of X11 became X server "of choice", as most Linux and BSD switched over in their respective release cycles.

The situation with Debian was fairly typical; their "X Strike Force" group kept XFree86 4.3 functional through 2004 and much of 2005 whilst putting new efforts into X.org

A thread on Ubunto forums: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=80156

Quote:

. . . and from wikipedia:

2003: dissent within the project

By 2003, while Linux's popularity, and hence the installed base of X, surged, X.Org was all but inactive [3] and active development was largely carried out by XFree86. However, there was considerable dissent within XFree86. It was perceived as far too cathedral-like in its development model; developers were unable to get CVS commit access [4] and vendors had to maintain extensive patches [5]. In March, long-term contributor Keith Packard was ejected from the Core Team with considerable ill-feeling [6] [7] [8]. The Core Team claimed this was for conspiracy: Keith had been trying to fork the XFree86 project, working inside the project, while trying to attract core developers to a new X Server project of his own making. Packard denied this had been his aim.

Disbanding of the Core Team

XFree86 used to have a Core Team which was made up of experienced developers, selected for their merits. Due to limited innovation capacity the XFree86 Core Team voted to disband itself, on December 30, 2003, effective the following day.

Licensing controversy

XFree86 4.4 was released in February 2004 with a change to the license [9]: the addition of an advertising clause, similar to that in the old version of the BSD license. Some hypothesised this was in response to the announcement of the Xouvert fork, to ensure that any fork of XFree86 would have to notably credit XFree86.

Many projects relying on X found the new license unacceptable [10] — the Free Software Foundation in particular as they held it to be incompatible with the GNU General Public License [11] (although XFree86 disagreed), and others simply did not wish for any code incorporated to be any further restricted than it already was. Some projects, such as OpenBSD, forked XFree86 from version 4.4 RC2, the last version under the old license. (OpenBSD later adopted the X.Org Server [12].)

Forks of XFree86

Xouvert

An experimental branch of the XFree86 server code, Xouvert, was announced in late 2003, but showed no activity after early 2004.

The XOrg Foundation Open Source Public Implementation of X11

The X.Org Server is the official reference implementation of X11, produced by X.Org. The first version, X11R6.7.0, was a fork from XFree86 version 4.4 RC2, with X11R6.6 changes merged in. Version X11R6.8 added many new extensions, drivers and fixes. It is not encumbered by the XFree86 license changes. It is hosted by and works closely with freedesktop.org.

Most of the open-source Unix-like operating systems have adopted the X.Org Server in place of XFree86, and most of the XFree86 developers moved to X.Org [13].

With that said I MUCH prefer X.org because:

1. It is more stable than XFree86 (I shit thee not)
2. It supports more chipsets natively
3. (moving ahead) It is now modular rather than monolithic
4. Alpha blending
5. It's free/free/free (free as in beer/free as in speech/free from advertising)

nenyo · 01-28-2006, 10:54 PM

i like xorg as well. i found it quite easy to manipulate and set up. i tried to use xfree86 and got thorowly confused, gave up and went back to xorg. it works. its free. its easy. use it... now.

foo_bar_foo · 01-29-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimVette

3. (moving ahead) It is now modular rather than monolithic

moving ahead huh.
just an example of the level of publicity propaganda that has been going on about xorg.
XFree4 implemented modularity in the X server (quite a huge task) long before now.

what is being mentioned above is a change to a "modular build" not a modular software design and has nothing to do with the architecture or design of the server itelf, and unless you build it alot from scratch this has absolutely no effect on you the end users at all. But rather like so much of it has become some kind of a marketing point and a very hollow illusionary one at that.

the fiasco with x beyond all things has taught us how vulnerable the Linux community is to manipulation and advertising which is quite a surprise and something we should all think about hard.

did anyone notice when xfree did a total rewrite on xfree4 and changed from monolithic to modular software design -- NO ! cause they didn't try to sell it to you. But now you think xorg has done it when they have not, because big corporate bucks have manipulated your perceptions.

very un-Linux behaviour i must say.

spooon · 01-29-2006, 08:39 PM

Are you not spreading negative propaganda yourself? In this free marketplace of ideas the better and more convincing ones will succeed; just because your ideas and opinions didn't win doesn't mean that others are "propaganda" or "manipulation". What gives you the right to think that your judgement is better or smarter than that of the rest of the Linux community?

The entire spirit of free software is that people can make forks of software if they want to take a new direction in the development of software or are unhappy with the way software is being developed; and if that fork should be received better than another, then so be it. Why does it matter if it should be called "X.org" or "XFree86"? Nobody denies that X.org descended from XFree86 4.3, but just because the current version of XFree86 is also called by the same name does not make it have any superior "claim" to the stuff that was done before, because free software emphasizes free exchange of ideas and source code, rather than claim or ownership.

foo_bar_foo · 01-29-2006, 10:06 PM

i was just pointing out that the claim that it was becoming modular is false.
it's just a fact.. facts are not claims or opinions.
propaganda is FALSE CLAIMS. that is a fact about propaganda. not a claim.
true calims are never propaganda. facts are facts. lies are manipulation.
facts can never be manipulation.

another manipulative false notion presented here is

Quote:

folks in the XFree86 team started bickering over licensing (one of the founders essentially wanted an indirect advertisement to his commercial X server) so the rest of the original core team forked off.

xfree has never been "comercial"
what hapened was, Keith Packard, was actively (but privately) seeking support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. Also he was abusing his use of comit to the xfree server by not consulting the core team so he was expelled from the xfree core. Later the xfree team decided to abandone the core team system in an effort to respond to the call to be more open and moved the discussion from the core to the developers at large. The project was never abandoned. AND all of this happened before any licensing change. At the time of the licensing change the switch to xorg was already a done deal.

so while we can all have our opinions
facts are not opinions but rather just facts.
presenting fake "facts" as true is propaganda and manipulation.
It scares me when i see large corporations and invitation only vested interests presenting false "facts" in relationship to Linux projects.
now that last one is an opinion.

foo_bar_foo · 01-29-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spooon

Nobody denies that X.org descended from XFree86 4.3

i deny that because it is not true either.
xorg was in existence long before the suposed fork
therefore by any known definition of the word is not a fork of xfree86 at all.

i'm not saying it's not a cool thing that xorg became open source. it's just not a fork of xfree.

I'm not alone in this idea
I read an interview with Alan Coopersmith an x developer with Sun Microsystems who is a frequent flier in the xorg commit list and one of the people who was a part of the transition and a part of xorg from before it was open source and he denied the notion the current opensource xorg was fork of xfree86 as well. He said it was xorg folded with xfree exactly the same way they had been doing it for years just moved to a new server.

so then why do they call it a "fork" ? to hide the huge influence being exerted on the project by the consortium. (that's corporate propaganda)

the main point is that everything including huge money changing hands needs to be open and on the table and honest. It is extreemly curious that all this disinformation is so widespread and accepted.

no problem with forks or projects changing and Linux comunity even moving forward with support from the big corporations. BIG problem with disinformation about what has and is occuring.