Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

X11 7.7 Released, Brings Multi-Touch Input

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the nostalgia-for-moderns dept.

X 128

First time accepted submitter Jizzbug writes "The X Window System made release X11 7.7 last night (June 9th): 'This release incorporates both new features and stability and correctness fixes, including support for reporting multi-touch events from touchpads and touchscreens which can report input from more than one finger at a time, smoother scrolling from scroll wheels, better cross referencing and formatting of the documentation, pointer barriers to control cursor movement, and synchronization fences to coordinate between X and other rendering engines such as OpenGL.'"

cancel ×

128 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274341)

Is it ok that I wasn't running X when I posted this?

Re:First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274379)

No. I am, so first "X" post.

i thought xorg buried x a long time ago (1)

steak (145650) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274377)

i thought xorg buried x a long time ago. x is the cat with 11 lives. rimshot.

Re:i thought xorg buried x a long time ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274493)

This is xorg, this instead of making a joke, you are just another ignorant IT lifer first posting on slashdot.

Re:i thought xorg buried x a long time ago (2)

thopkins (70408) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275001)

You are thinking of XFree86.

Wht not sound? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274383)

X virtualises user interface devices: mice, keyboard, display. Why sound has always been outside? Is not it another part of user interface?

Why we have these incompatible "sound servers", if the X protocol could be used instead? Tunneling a video with sound through X through ssh through Internet? No problem.

Re:Wht not sound? (3, Funny)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274415)

THIS is a very important idea. Sound is blocked from the X protolcol by an Italian-Apple conspiracy funded by the Vatican and the CIA to keep X from its rightful place as the Queen of Multimedia Web 3.0 Compurtrterizining.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274499)

X with sound? It's hard enough getting sound to work well locally, and you want to mix things up with X?!

Re:Wht not sound? (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274665)

It's hard enough getting sound to work well locally

Nah, just try "apt-get purge pulseaudio".

Re:Wht not sound? (5, Interesting)

ChrisMP1 (1130781) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274805)

Am I the only one who's never had a single problem with Pulse? What is it doing for everyone else that makes it so bad?

Re:Wht not sound? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275013)

No, I'm sure there's more people who's never had problems with pulseaudio. About 3 or 4 i mean...

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276711)

They don't whine and bitch and moan. So they are far less visible. That's the problem with stuff in general. Most people that aren't having problems simply aren't motivated to declare that things are fine.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40277969)

I use pulseaudio on two different computers, on Linux Mint and Kubuntu. Never had any problems with it.

That said, I don't know that it's the greatest solution to the problem. It seems like OSS4, where multiple programs can write to /dev/dsp simultaneously (as I understand it), is an architecturally superior solution to doing this in userspace. Then again, it seems like it'd make even more sense to build sound into X (or its successor), so that people running remotely will have both video and audio redirected to their workstation automatically. Imagine 4 people logged into one system, all running applications with audio; with them all writing to /dev/dsp, you'd have a bunch of different sounds coming out of the speakers on one system that there might not even be any local users on.

But again, pulseaudio seems to work just fine for me.

Re:Wht not sound? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275021)

It used to be very crash prone, laggey and with a whole lode of audio glitch issues. It has not caused any serious issues for me for about 2 years now, and complaints form new users have dropped dramatically so it seems to have improved quite a bit. You do not want to use it for low latency audio and there are a few specific pieces of hardware that do not work but most complainers either oppose its design principles or still hate it due to long memories rather than current issues.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275047)

It still takes way too much CPU for what it does. ALSA is much, much better in that regard.

Re:Wht not sound? (3, Informative)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275233)

You do not want to use it for low latency audio and there are a few specific pieces of hardware that do not work but most complainers either oppose its design principles or still hate it due to long memories rather than current issues.

I recently updated from debian squeeze to wheezy, and in the process it reinstalled pulseaudio. Surprise, surprise: my computer crashed frequently until I got rid of it again.

Sound on Linux has been very problematic the entire time I've been using it -- since the late '90s. It's turned into this weird tinker-toy arrangement where nothing quite works right, and debugging problems when you have them is extraordinarily painful.

Right now, the best solution I've found is to nuke all of the ALSA, pulseaudio, and other userland crap and go with OSSv4 -- it's been very stable for me over the last few years, and since it's self-contained at least solving problems doesn't take finding a needle in a haystack. The biggest downside is that (at least, AFAIK), it's not supported by mainstream distros, so if you're not comfortable recompiling your kernel and modules it's not usable.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276393)

If PulseAudio can make your computer crash, then you've got bigger problems than PulseAudio. Probably broken audio hardware drivers.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40277995)

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what someone means when they say "crash". For instance, suppose your desktop environment suddenly crashes, leaving you back at a login prompt and losing all your work. To most users, that's a "crash", even though there may be no problem at all with the kernel or drivers, only with the desktop environment which runs in userspace.

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278085)

Yes, but I don't think those users would compile OSSv4 to get around ALSA and PulseAudio's failures.

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278843)

You do not want to use it for low latency audio

So, what are you supposed to use it for? Given that gaming isn't exactly Linux's forte, and audio production is a more likely niche, which requires low latency audio, what problem is pulse trying to solve. Having multiple audio solutions because the primary one can't do low latency is retarded.

Meanwhile, FreeBSD has done multi-channel audio out of the box without any grief since at least 2005.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40279613)

Try listening to stuff! low latency recording needs specific hardware and a lot of manual tuning to do right either way so an interface that just works on the maximum range of hardware, at the expense of performance, was the intent. Whether or not it succeeds is a different matter but it does have its purpose.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275035)

What makes it so bad, it sits between stuff that does something and the application your using, replicates functionality of pre-existing applications whilst increasing latency and when things do go wrong it seems that purging it from the system has so far done wonders.

YMMV so enjoy, I haven't found a compeling reason for it yet other that its widely adopted and getting harder to avoid. That does not make me smile.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276019)

Compelling reason for it? It makes my microphone work right in TF2 via Wine(likely because of resampling - Audigy 2 sound card).
For everything else on that system, ALSA is fine with defaults due to the hardware mixer on that card.

On other systems however... I've had great luck with it on my laptop and it's crummy DAC, abd especially being able to hotplug a USB DAC and have the sound come out of there automatically. And I didn't even have to edit config files!
Lag is still an issue, but there's a environment variable that can be set to limit the latency for Pulse, and it makes gaming doable with it(where the sound matches up with the picture...)

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275065)

it keeps assigning channels randomly to my 5.1 setup, that's both bad and annoying.

Re:Wht not sound? (5, Interesting)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275069)

I think the reason people don't like it is that it introduces a fair number of problems, and it only has benefits in some rare, specific circumstances

Pulse seems to have been introduced at the wrong level, for what it is. Because it works on top of ALSA, it relies heavily on some little used functions, such as getting the true decibel level of the volume controls. (This causes the PA volume controls to fail for some hardware, such as muting the audio at 25 %). On the other hand, it doesn't make use of all ALSA functions, so it does resampling and mixing in software, instead of relying on (possibly superior) hardware. It also doesn't expose all functionality of the underlying devices, and I think it was difficult to get passthrough of digital audio to work about 6 months ago. So it's a rich API built on top of another rich API, offering little benefit, and introducing some bugs.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275107)

I shoud concede that it's a cross platform API, while Advanced Linux Sound Architecture doesn't work on things like BSD. Still, BSD people look at you strangely if you try to get Pulse working, and tell you to use OSS or OSS4.

Re:Wht not sound? (5, Interesting)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276063)

BSD people look at you strangely if you try to get Pulse working

That's because Pulseaudio was designed to solve issues that for the most part have never existed on BSD systems. The BSD's evolved their existing OSS based audio subsystems to fix the few issues it had, whereas Linux chose to adopt a poorly implemented new system. I speak from experience, having tried to write an OSS shim for NetBSD that emulated the ALSA MIDI API, and became frustrated by the incomplete, innacurate documentation. I was also bemused by the ALSA API itself which looked like it was designed to be object oriented, but actually implemented by people with no real understanding of good OO princples.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278865)

Exactly. I've had multi-channel audio working almost out of the box on BSD since at least 2005. It was a breath of fresh air after trying to get audio working *properly* on Linux in a multi-channel, multi application aware manner, dealing with enlightenment sound daemon for some stuff (but games wouldn't work with it), etc.

BSD = load appropriate sound module. Run application. Enjoy multi channel sound.

Re:Wht not sound? (4, Interesting)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276045)

To be honest, I agree with it's choice to hardware mix/resample in software - Most cards(by volume) are just dumb DACs, and the few that aren't(like my audigy 2) have enough bugs to make it useless to try - Just use ALSA straight on those cards, or only use Pulse for that application(which works perfectly well when you have a hardware mixer).

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275239)

In my experience Pulse will sometimes not work at all, and other times when you change the system volume it will lag on changing quite a bit or make the sound mute briefly.

I had a much better experience overall with ALSA and ESD.

Re:Wht not sound? (5, Interesting)

ffflala (793437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275643)

Pulse killed the possibility of multitrack recording studio on Linux. You can still look back and witness the dramatic die-off of multitrack Linux uses and discussion that coincide with the introduction of Pulse. It's like going back and looking at MySpace, or Friendster.

Right before Ubuntu brought in Pulse, I'd finally hit a sweet spot with Linux audio. With ALSA + qjackctl I was able to manage low-latency multitrack audio recording, and simultaneously have discrete control over the audio of all media players. Before pulse, I was able to use my terminal as a giant mixing board, managing recording and various media playback simultaneously. Different mixes and levels for different apps -- I was able to discretely control the audio levels and mixes for *each channel* in surround sound.

Pulse completely destroyed these capabilities, it eliminated the low-latency capability necessary for multitrack recording, and replaced it with frequent crashes, inconsistent behavior, and was tied in so deeply that Ubuntu has never since been capable of the audio layout I'd been using about five years ago.

Pulse is the single worst Linux move I've ever seen. In the interest of removing audio from the kernel space (necessary for low-latency), it simply eliminated what used to be advanced capabilities. Lennart Poettering, author of Pulse simply disregarded these concerns, waved his hands and said "that's not the concerns Pulse was designed to address!"

No shit, Lennart.

Re:Wht not sound? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275795)

So the same guy that made system boot configuration and init scripts a huge pain in the ass with systemd is also responsible for screwing up our sound support? Somehow I am not surprised by this....

Re:Wht not sound? (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275987)

It's really time for the kernel guys to take another look at OSS4. Fully GPL compatible, it belongs in the kernel.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40277465)

OSS3: Everything is a Soundblaster

OSS4: Everything is a Soundblaster 16

In case you haven't been paying attention, the world moved on. Nobody has a Soundblaster 16 any more. People expect USB speakers and Bluetooth headsets to Just Work. PA delivers all that functionality. If OSS4 had arrived 10-15 years ago it might have been worth a look but it didn't.

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

Freultwah (739055) | more than 2 years ago | (#40281305)

Are you daft? Even the supported devices list from 2009 proves you wrong: http://manuals.opensound.com/devlists/Linux.html [opensound.com] . In case you haven't been paying attention and are just trolling.

Re:Wht not sound? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276193)

Since you're flaming, I can flame harder.

Disclaimer: I've sent some patches to pulseaudio and alsa.

Pulseaudio is possibly the best thing that has ever happened to linux, the introduction was unquestionably problematic, but dmix that it replaced will not be missed. It also contains features that decrease the amount of interrupts needed, and it didn't work around problems in hardware but fixed. If you feel like it you can STILL use jack, in fact with -rt kernel I ran pulseaudio on top of jack in a 2.5ms maximum latency configuration with 0 underruns for native jack clients.

In the time that only dmix existed, a lot of features were missing and you couldn't guarantee that something that happened to work on your card would ever work on someone else's card and all names for the master channel was inconsistent and the dB levels were usually garbage. You have the people who worked on pulseaudio and fixed the upstream bugs instead of hacking around them to thank that those problems were actually fixed.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40281603)

+1

Pulseaudio made linux audio work well on things that are not Soundblaster Live or equivalent.
Unfortunately, for a while it made SB work worse (or not at all, in the first versions),
so many people still hate it.

Re:Wht not sound? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276211)

Pulse killed the possibility of

Why not use jackd directly on top of alsa and pulseaudio as a client for jack? You could use pulseaudio for all desktop stuff that doesn't need low latency which I believe would only use one jack slot (or whatever it is called) and all latency critically things could connect directly to jack.

pacmd suspend true
sudo jackd -d alsa
pactl load-module module-jack-sink channels=2
pactl load-module module-jack-source channels=2
pacmd set-default-sink jack_out
pacmd set-default-source jack_in
pacmd suspend false

Or something like that.

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278567)

So... do what every one else does.... DONT USE IT!

I removed it via a hack... by doing a force hack mv on the pulsecrap bin... hackish very hackish.

Now I just remove the packages in synaptic and let ALSA take over in Phonon like it should.

So just remove it and go back to doing what you were doing.

Yes its an uneeded and annoying to have to do this, but just like the other PITA project, WAYLAND, the too young to have been alive when X or ALSA came about have their heads buried on what is the "better path."

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278871)

Try FreeBSD. Multichannel audio just works.

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

ffflala (793437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40279025)

I started learning *nix w/ FreeBSD back towards the end of the 4.x series, and stuck with FreeBSD through the beginning of 6.x. As fond as I am of the BSDs, they are fundamentally incompatible with multitrack *recording*.

Multitrack recording is where you record a track or tracks while listening to and playing along with a prerecorded track. This requires extremely low latency -- you need to be able to play something and hear it back as close to instantaneously as possible. Latency needs to be at a lower time threshold than you can perceive, and about 6 microsecond is the threshold (though that's pushing it.) Any latency larger than that, and the newly recorded tracks will be noticeably out of sync with the playback tracks.

This part is beyond my knowledge (please forgive and correct any inaccuracies, respected kernel hackers) but I'll share my understanding: Linux achieves low latency with real time interrupts -- several years ago Ingo Molnar created the first RT kernel patch for Linux. However, real time interrupts also, unfortunately, provide a vector for instability and insecurity, and BSD architecture intentionally disallows real-time interrupts to kernel space, from user space. Because of this, BSD latency is not low enough to allow for multitrack recording.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40279823)

>> Different mixes and levels for different apps

Weird... I wanted that feature, and that's exactly why I was installing PulseAudio for a year before Ubuntu picked it up as a standard. PulseAudio makes per-app mixing just work, whereas before Pulse came around I had never seen any OS do that since the BeOS.

Re:Wht not sound? (4, Insightful)

Tore S B (711705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275913)

Because the distros put it in way the hell to early, a point at which there were plenty of kinks, and the benefits had not been made visible in a meaningful way in any UI I noticed.

There's only so many times you could end up with random sound problems which were solved - with no loss of functionality - by killall pulseaudio - or more permanently...

rm /usr/bin/pulseaudio
ln -s /bin/cat /usr/bin/pulseaudio

...without developing a certain animosity towards that binary.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276213)

Exactly. The PA developers told the distros PA wasn't ready for mass adoption yet. The distro guys took it anyways and it was a big fuckup. The distro guys then kept their mouth shut while the user community grabbed their torches for the PA developers.

Basically, if you've ever been mad as PA, especially in the early days, chances are extremely high you blamed and cursed the wrong people. You really need to be kicking the balls of your favorite distro maintainers. But since people blindly fall in love with their seemingly dumb-ass maintainers, I guess its easiler to blindly and dumbly blame PA, not matter how inappropriate it is to do so.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278315)

Hmm. This sounds a bit like the KDE4.0 fiasco, except there the KDE guys stupidly said it was ready for mass adoption, even though it clearly wasn't. And then they did the exact same thing with GNOME 3.0.

It seems the Linux distro maintainers really don't bother to test their builds very much.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40279147)

the KDE4.0 fiasco, except there the KDE guys stupidly said it was ready for mass adoption, even though it clearly wasn't

No, the KDE guys clearly said that the 4.0 release was not ready for mass adoption and was only intended for developers to learn the platform; the distros f'ed it up in their mad dash to be the first to have something new.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40281295)

Obviously the KDE guys never said that, because clearly it wasn't. Unfortunately only SuSE understood that, most other distros didn't.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275963)

There might be someone else out there! keep looking!

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276299)

Maybe it works in some distant universe, not in mime. It's usually 20% CPU on a quad core.
I'm unable to configure it to work in a simple 2.1 (using center as the sub woofer as God intended)
environment. When I do an install, I just remove it after the install. Things seem to work better.
Honestly, I really don't know what it brings to the table.

Actually, it's sad that the X windows system did not pick it up. Probably would have been much
better of an implementation than the current state of Linux audio.

CAPTCHA = exploits

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40277191)

Some years back it was quite tricky to get working in distributions that didn't pre-configure it, required equal proportions of skill and dumb luck. If you stuck to the more user friendly stuff like ubuntu, mint, etc. it's likely you never would have experienced issues. I remember a great deal of frustration before finally just going back to alsa with arch. Damn thing was impossible...

But, like the former difficulty of wifi, it's mostly a distant memory. Mostly...

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40277513)

I will start using it as soon as my microphone actually works with Skype and it stops crashing when I use Audacity. So far the only advantage I've seen is the ability to change the volume of individual applications, which is something I never need because all those applications already have their own volume controls. The disadvantages are easy to find: it increases the latency (rather significantly for some applications), the internal microphone only works half of the time (I can get it to work again by launching Audacity and recording a few seconds of sound, hoping it won't crash) and it's not exactly stable. I really don't see what's wrong with ALSA + dmix, I'm using it now and it works just fine.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

marioinutil (732193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40277953)

I've been using Ubuntu/Xubuntu for the last 6 years, and I like playing games in emulators like MAME and Mednafen. Pulseaudio causes delays, sometimes of several seconds, with the libsdl pulseaudio package installed.

I have a simple 14 dollars Sound Blaster Audigy SE PCI card.

Purging Pulseaudio and using plain ALSA makes all of my sound problems go away.

The sound lag in some emulators is gone. I can even watch movie files with 5.1 surround sound without any problem, and several sound outputting applications such as the flash plugin under Firefox work simultaneously.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40279771)

Not the only one. Hell, I was setting up pulseaudio by hand for a year or so before it became the standard on Ubuntu, just because it made things work _so_ much better.

However, the reports of it borking things are consistent enough to convince me we might be in a minority.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276697)

>> It's hard enough getting sound to work well locally
>
> Nah, just try "apt-get purge pulseaudio".

Nah. Just use "apt-get remove lemming-trolls"

Re:Wht not sound? (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275113)

Sound works fine on FreeBSD, no need for ugly hacks like PulseAudio, just in-kernel low-latency sound mixing and a full OSS4 implementation, complete with per-application volume controls, surround sound, and all of the features you'd expect of a modern operating system.

Re:Wht not sound? (2)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276675)

Sound works fine on FreeBSD, no need for ugly hacks like PulseAudio, just in-kernel low-latency sound mixing and a full OSS4 implementation, complete with per-application volume controls, surround sound, and all of the features you'd expect of a modern operating system.

That's one thing the BSD's got right. However Linux had an old and unmaintainable version of OSS, so ALSA had to kill it off in Kernel. PulseAudio is a nasty bloated buggy piece of crap, even old ESD works far better IMHO.

So the same guy that made system boot configuration and init scripts a huge pain in the ass with systemd is also responsible for screwing up our sound support? Somehow I am not surprised by this....

Amen!

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274671)

Why sound servers shoud be compatible? Just stick with PA and be set. Or JACK with plain ALSA, if pro sound is your thing.

Re:Wht not sound? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274869)

It was called 'NAS': Network Audio System. AFAIK it was output only, supported stereo audio, and had more or less died out by 2005. I used it a bunch prior to that as a much much reliable replacement to ESD/pulseaudio however. It just worked, allowed me to stream audio to remote X sessions, and did it with pretty low network overhead. As a bonus it used whatever your DISPLAY variable was set to as the remote end.

Re:Why not sound? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274879)

The X Consortium (the follow-on to the MIT X Consortium, i.e. the original x.org) started to do audio back around 1994.

Nobody gave a toss then and the project died when the consortium folded at the end of 1996.

And BTW, before that there were two competing audio extensions, one from DEC and the other from NCD IIRC, and neither one caught on.

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275179)

There are two answers to your question:

  1. "Do one thing and do it well" is the Unix philosophy.
  2. It wouldn't work anyway [xkcd.com]

Re:Wht not sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276581)

"Do one thing and do it well" is the Unix philosophy.

"Do one thing" => "Provide an interface between the application and the UI hardware"
"Do it well" => "Support all the UI hardware" (since X already handles both graphics and input, claiming sound should be handled by some other component is rather peculiar)

Please Specify which X implimentation (1)

kassah (2392014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274487)

Only way I figured out it was X.org is clicking the link.

Re:Please Specify which X implimentation (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274507)

There is only one X implementation that makes new versions of X.

Ahh yes, jizzbug (1)

tapspace (2368622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274527)

Wise words from a wise man

Isn't it a little late? (2)

mitzampt (2002856) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274535)

Coordinating with other engines? Isn't that the kind of thing that lets one use Wayland partially as a standalone server side to side to X? Is this the 'feature' of stepping down and letting other servers or engines develop?
Maybe we'll evolve this way past the Xorg.conf and its documentation, good riddance, moving from a wrinkled legacy to a more sane and friendly approach. I love X when it works, it's unbearable when it doesn't.

Wayland (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275219)

Anybody know what is Wayland's status at the moment? When will it be ready to be bundled w/ the likes of FreeBSD, Debian, RedHat, Gentoo and other leading base Linux distros?

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275543)

I thought Wayland depends on the Linux kernel. So I can't see it running on FreeBSD unless they copy the necessary parts out of the kernel into Wayland or the FreeBSD kernel.

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275655)

Parts from the Linux kernel? Parts that are licensed under the GPL? Do you honestly think those have a snowball's chance in Hell of being ported into the FreeBSD (or any *BSD) kernel?

If Wayland truly relies on things in Linux – i.e. in the kernel – that will be its downfall.

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40275845)

I'm not so sure. The UNIX world is becoming very Linux- and GNU-centric.

Re:Wayland (2)

celle (906675) | more than 2 years ago | (#40277991)

"The UNIX world is becoming very Linux- and GNU-centric."

So much for being portable and flexible.

Re:Wayland (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276505)

It depends on kernel mode setting. There's nothing Wayland depends on that can't be implemented by FreeBSD.

Re:Wayland (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278879)

Hopefully they publish an API that can be reimplmented by BSD. But of course that doesn't seem to be the GNU way.

Re:Wayland (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276085)

Wayland's current status: it continues to be the vaporware windowing system that is the darling of people who have no idea about what X really does or what its problems might be.

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276137)

This is the best, most informative, most insightful post I've seen on slashdot in months.

Too fucking true.

Re:Wayland (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40277525)

Except one of the biggest contributors to Wayland is Keith Packard, the guy who forked X.org from XFree86. I'm pretty sure he has a good grasp on windowing issues. Not sure he's the person to write something from scratch, though, especially when all the low-level I/O details were already worked out decades ago; they don't have any experience with viable alternatives. The RPC mechanism in Wayland is truly horrendous.

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40277689)

It's true that the contributors may have some clue, but most people boosting it on places like /. do not.

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40281791)

Whooosh!

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40279159)

Anybody know what is Wayland's status at the moment? When will it be ready to be bundled w/ the likes of FreeBSD, Debian, RedHat, Gentoo and other leading base Linux distros?

For the love of all that is good, please let the answer be: never!

Too slow and too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40274601)

Several years for making a new feature into X, and then several months for making it into GUI frameworks, and then more months for apps to finally utilize that particular feature.

Brings as in it's now part of.... (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274619)

X has had multi touch for YEARS. It was a patch. it's only now that it's a part of the official.

Does it only record multi-TOUCH events? (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275281)

Or can it also record things like multiple hovering events?

Re:Does it only record multi-TOUCH events? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40279741)

X Input 2 introduced MPX (multi-pointer X) that allowed multiple pointers on the same display. That was a precursor (rimshot) for the multitouch support. So yes.

Using X's power? (1)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#40275695)

I've actually played around a bit with X Windows's remote windowing feature, which was around years before MS put similar functionality in Windows, but it was a pain to set up and get it working.

Are there any window managers/desktop environments that can utilize X's more esoteric features like these in a simple, uncomplicated fashion? Preferably without messing with the command line.

Re:Using X's power? (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276003)

Despite your dig at the command line, it really doesn't get any simpler than 'ssh -X remotehost remoteapp'.

Re:Using X's power? (2)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40279067)

I'm sure you can write a wrapper where you have to click at least a dozen times to select the remote host and app.

Re:Using X's power? (3, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276291)

It's so not complicated to export a window to another display. Just set an environment variable to tell it where to display and authorize the machine on the remote display. Nothing to it. Despite that, the companies I've worked at that have needed to do this just set up VNC and work on the machine remotely instead.

If you want to do something like Sun, where you authenticate and it finds your session out there and pops it up on your machine, that's a bit more complicated. Pretty cool, but more complicated.

Its a pain to set up if you're an idiot (3, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276803)

"but it was a pain to set up and get it working."

Yup, I mean look at these examples for how devastatingly complicated it it:

"xterm -display [host ip]:[display id]"

or if you're feeling even more l337:

export DISPLAY=[host ip]:[display]
xterm

But I guess if you wet the bed at the thought of having to use a keyboard instead of a mouse then you're pretty screwed.

Re:Its a pain to set up if you're an idiot (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278581)

Maybe the OP is talking about enabling incoming X connections. This varies with the display manager and its release, and sometimes does require the edition of a non obvious configuration file.

No it doesn't (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40280907)

"xhost +"

Sorted.

Re:No it doesn't (1)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40281105)

"xhost +"

Sorted.

Except that current distros tend to have -nolisten tcp by default.

Re:Using X's power? (1)

karzan (132637) | more than 2 years ago | (#40277579)

'remote windowing feature'? That's like saying http has a 'remote web page download feature' because you can connect to an http server from another machine. The whole point of X is that it is a network protocol from the ground up. It's designed for environments where applications are run over networks; unfortunately nowadays the PC model of computing has won, which is why 'remote windowing' looks like an extra 'feature'.

Re:Using X's power? (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278647)

'remote windowing feature'? That's like saying http has a 'remote web page download feature' because you can connect to an http server from another machine. The whole point of X is that it is a network protocol from the ground up. It's designed for environments where applications are run over networks; unfortunately nowadays the PC model of computing has won, which is why 'remote windowing' looks like an extra 'feature'.

It MAY LOOK this way, but "cloud" computing is nothing more than the resurection of time share systems of the past on mainframe and minis.

XDMCP and X via SSH will play an even more important role in this "new cloud" world.

The fact that the developers of certain software, cough wayland cough, was not even alive when X and thin computing or using a TTY60 on a dial up modem, shows that forgetting history is just as applicable to computer/technology as it is to the real world.

And NO the "PC model" has not won.... I just took an agency back to thin computing clients using X/XDMCP on local LAN, and remotely via VPN for their day to day ops. All the issues with slow PC's went out the door when Linux was installed and none of the wasteful resource hogging "security" software was no longer needed! Add in the cost savings... HUGE WIN.

Re:Using X's power? (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40279069)

It MAY LOOK this way, but "cloud" computing is nothing more than the resurection of time share systems of the past on mainframe and minis.

Only if you define "cloud computing" as "running jobs on shared infrastructure with quotas". Mainframes and minis of the past didn't have replicated filesystems, didn't scale to multiple sites and certainly didn't let you run potentially untrusted code in a sandbox.

Cloud computing is to car pooling as a mainframe is to mass transit. It's certainly cheaper and more efficient to send 1000 people from A to B by bus or train than to use the equivalent number of cars, but it only works if a critical mass of people all want to go the same way.

Direct video access? (1)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276177)

Did Linux ever get an equivalent to DirectDraw? I know there is svgalib, but I thought that was equivalent to full screen DOS programs on Windows 98, since it could not share the screen. The news about coordinating rendering engines sounds neat, like you could safely get access to video memory and bypass any windowing systems, but still cooperate with a windowing system.

Re:Direct video access? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276549)

Did Linux ever get an equivalent to DirectDraw?

Does DRI qualify?

Re:Direct video access? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276633)

Not exactly, but the concept of direct access to video memory became unimportant. There's really no use for it at this point. Graphics hardware is sufficiently complicated that there is no useful way to "just get a pointer to video memory." The concept really no longer exists. If it did exist, it would be completely different on different hardware. And, it would be horribly slow.

Instead, you have OpenGL. You can make a texture on the CPU, upload it to the GPU, and draw it while "cooperating with the windowing system." Better yet, you can try to actually use OpenGL to take advantage of the GPU. The GPU will be much faster than trying to build an image on the CPU and write it into the GPU memory. Even Windows no longer has a concept of DirectDraw the way that we talked about it back in the days of Windows 95. The fact that Linux never had a direct analogue was never an omission, as much as a slightly more forward looking perspective.

Re:Direct video access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40276637)

It did. It was called DGA and it was removed because direct access to video memory by applications is slow.

Re:Direct video access? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276831)

That would be why X running with framebuffer runs slower than X talking direct to hardware on both of my machines I suppose? (X is an application btw)

Re:Direct video access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40277921)

Not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, but the framebuffer is the equivalent to DirectDraw. The Linux framebuffer is a way to write directly to the video framebuffer. X "talking direct" to the hardware is like the OpenGL solution, where instead of drawing directly into the frame buffer it's sending abstract compositing commands to the accelerator. And because those commands are comparatively low-bandwidth (excluding the times when you need to send images), it hardly matters how many layers of software there are between the sender and the hardware.

Re:Direct video access? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40280933)

"The Linux framebuffer is a way to write directly to the video framebuffer"

No , the linux framebuffer is essentially abstract video hardware so the video drivers can be moved into the kernel instead of X windows having to have them. Unfortunately this means every write to the display now has to go via the kernel instead of going direct. X using its own specific video card graphics drivers avoids this and is in consequence a damn sight faster. And the programs I tested were using base Xlib on a raw X server with no window manager running or compositing in sight.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?