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....

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). :)

what are the differences between the licences? As far as I can tell both look pretty much identical (but then I am a :newbie: ) 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 :)

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 :confused:

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

Apple's Implementation
 

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.

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?"

;)

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