LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Closed Thread
  Search this Thread
Old 04-14-2004, 08:10 PM   #1
newinlinux
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Next to Equator
Distribution: GNU/Linux 2.6.14
Posts: 382

Rep: Reputation: 30
X.Org or XFree?


Pulled from Slackware's changelog:

Tue Apr 13 20:13:15 PDT 2004
x/xfree86-4.4.0-i486-2.tgz: Upgraded to fontconfig-2.2.2, freetype-2.1.7, and
Xft-2.1.5.
x/xfree86-devel-4.4.0-i486-2.tgz: Upgraded to fontconfig-2.2.2, freetype-2.1.7,
and Xft-2.1.5.
x/xfree86-docs-4.4.0-noarch-2.tgz: Upgraded freetype2 docs to version 2.1.7.
testing/packages/x11/*: Added X11R6.7.0 from X.Org.
Got an opinion on what the future of X in Slackware should be? I'm curious
about that myself, and welcome comments on the matter at x@slackware.com.

PV is asking for feedbacks on x.org and xfree. I guess he is undecided on which way to go too....
 
Old 04-14-2004, 11:03 PM   #2
jsmarshall85
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 386

Rep: Reputation: 30
i am curious about this as well. i have seen what x.org looks like on other distros and it looks very nice. it was a standard kde 3.2.1 (or 3.2.2) but it has cool effects like every window has a drop shadow around it and things like that.
 
Old 04-15-2004, 03:05 AM   #3
Azmeen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware, LFS, CentOS
Posts: 1,307

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by jsmarshall85
i am curious about this as well. i have seen what x.org looks like on other distros and it looks very nice. it was a standard kde 3.2.1 (or 3.2.2) but it has cool effects like every window has a drop shadow around it and things like that.
You sure that's a feature of XO? I think that has more to do with the DE and/or WM.

I believe the main issue of XFree vs XO is that of licensing terms as well as other "political" stuff. I think that at the core level they're basically 100% compatible (or at least close to that).

I think that whichever way Pat chooses, there's bound to be packages of the alternative available somewhere... In the end, the choice is still with the end user, which IMHO is a "good thing" (TM).
 
Old 04-15-2004, 05:17 AM   #4
dhbiker
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Distribution: Slackware 10.2
Posts: 196

Rep: Reputation: 30
what are the differences between the licences? As far as I can tell both look pretty much identical (but then I am a ) slack has used XFree so far right? I remember something about them changing their license on the newest version or something, any clues?
 
Old 04-15-2004, 07:03 AM   #5
Azmeen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware, LFS, CentOS
Posts: 1,307

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dhbiker
what are the differences between the licences? As far as I can tell both look pretty much identical (but then I am a ) slack has used XFree so far right? I remember something about them changing their license on the newest version or something, any clues?
The 1.1 license from XF86 is available here.

Basically, what most distros are worried about is stated in the first FAQ just below the license.

Including the license in binaries would be a pain for most distros which previously, need not bother with this condition because the XF86 license is already in the source code.

However, that's my reasoning for it because I'm really apolitical when it comes to licenses. There was a vibrant discussion on Slashdot some time ago that has more information regarding this new license. Perhaps it would be useful to you
 
Old 04-15-2004, 07:47 AM   #6
Alan Lakin
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Wallington, Surrey, UK
Distribution: Linux Mint Xfce, Android phone
Posts: 109

Rep: Reputation: 15
I have just read the license and the faq refered to. I seems to me that the new license wishes to explicitly cover the binaries whereas previously this was an oversight. It all seems to be a bit of a none issue - or have I missed the point
 
Old 04-15-2004, 09:25 AM   #7
Azmeen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware, LFS, CentOS
Posts: 1,307

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Alan Lakin
I have just read the license and the faq refered to. I seems to me that the new license wishes to explicitly cover the binaries whereas previously this was an oversight. It all seems to be a bit of a none issue - or have I missed the point
I believe, it's not specifically because of the license... but where the license need to be placed. If you read para 2 of the license, it states:
  • Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.

Which would be fine and dandy for "normal" apps... meaning the developers can simply stick it in the menubar of the app (a typical Help -> About type of thing), or something along those lines. But in X's case... it's not a "normal" app, it's more like a totally independant substructure of an OS... It's like init for GUIs. Just where might we put such notices then?

Another thing is para 3:
  • The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

Basically, this pisses "box set" distributors because of the extra costs needed to reprint manuals, user guides and so on.

And for the zealots, what really riles them is the fact that this new license is GPL incompatible.

So like I mentioned earlier, this is more of a political issue rather than a technical one.

My reasoning may be totally wrong for what it's worth... IANAL, so please do not take my words as facts, they are merely an eloquation of how I see this license.
 
Old 04-15-2004, 09:38 AM   #8
dhbiker
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Distribution: Slackware 10.2
Posts: 196

Rep: Reputation: 30
surely you could just have the licence print out every time you startx? granted user's would only see it flash up very briefly but it'd be there for all to see in the logs?

you say "box set distributors" would get pissed off, but surely upgrading to XFree4.4 is seen as a fairly major upgrade and so most would do this as a version change? and I'm sure version changes mean documentation changes as well? (correcting errors, adding in new little bits like the XFree licence info etc.)

Well to be honest it could be a change for the better to move from XFree86 to XOrg since XOrg is gonna stay free forever!? My main concerns would be changes in the way things worked (i.e. config files moving around, different syntax etc) but from the sounds of things that isn't an issue at all

Last edited by dhbiker; 04-15-2004 at 09:39 AM.
 
Old 04-15-2004, 09:54 AM   #9
Azmeen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware, LFS, CentOS
Posts: 1,307

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dhbiker
surely you could just have the licence print out every time you startx? granted user's would only see it flash up very briefly but it'd be there for all to see in the logs?

you say "box set distributors" would get pissed off, but surely upgrading to XFree4.4 is seen as a fairly major upgrade and so most would do this as a version change? and I'm sure version changes mean documentation changes as well? (correcting errors, adding in new little bits like the XFree licence info etc.)

Well to be honest it could be a change for the better to move from XFree86 to XOrg since XOrg is gonna stay free forever!? My main concerns would be changes in the way things worked (i.e. config files moving around, different syntax etc) but from the sounds of things that isn't an issue at all
Like I said earlier, this is more of a "political" issue rather than a technical one... so for us non-political end users, it shouldn't be a big deal.
 
Old 04-16-2004, 08:06 AM   #10
Toth
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 83

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by jsmarshall85
i am curious about this as well. i have seen what x.org looks like on other distros and it looks very nice. it was a standard kde 3.2.1 (or 3.2.2) but it has cool effects like every window has a drop shadow around it and things like that.
You are thinking of xserver, which is a completely different project but also hosted at freedesktop.org. The X.org server does not contain the new damage extension and compositing manager etc. that provide drop shadows and true translucency. I would expect them in the next X.org release though.
 
Old 04-16-2004, 08:52 AM   #11
Justin_Time
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 53

Rep: Reputation: 15
You are also forgetting that Xfree is a real slow and closed! group of developers. There were some patches that had to wait month's to Even noticed them. There is no way to help the group with development, this can be really bad for the future of X. That's why X.org is a real good alternative.
 
Old 01-08-2006, 05:05 PM   #12
psfile
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Thumbs up Apple's Implementation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin_Time
You are also forgetting that Xfree is a real slow and closed! group of developers. There were some patches that had to wait month's to Even noticed them. There is no way to help the group with development, this can be really bad for the future of X. That's why X.org is a real good alternative.
I came to this site to learn more about Xfree vs Xo. What I've learned is that I can get started using Apple's version, but longterm I wonder why Apple chose Xfree based on the above comments.

It would be interesting to know what Apple's thinking was.
 
Old 01-08-2006, 05:25 PM   #13
Franklin
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2002
Distribution: Slackware, Windows 7
Posts: 1,257

Rep: Reputation: 61
I think we need some kind of warning mechanism that pops up and says:

"You are about to post to a thread that is almost 2 years old. Do you really want to do this?"

 
Old 01-08-2006, 06:26 PM   #14
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 19,192
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475
We did have, on the old site. Please report this to the Bug Tracker. This thread is, in the mean time, closed.
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
freebsdforum.org or bsdforum.org are they 'jeremy' forum websites? t3gah LQ Suggestions & Feedback 1 06-12-2005 11:06 PM
Debian > switching from XFree to X.org defcon3 Linux - Software 5 09-18-2004 06:15 PM
Has anyone changed from xfree to x.org? rignes Slackware 12 07-11-2004 04:18 PM
What difference between X.ord and Xfree.org? rsamurti Slackware - Installation 2 06-07-2004 08:45 PM
Updating XFree while running XFree? Micro420 Mandriva 7 02-18-2004 02:48 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration