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!

FreeBSD Moves to X.Org

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the thanks-for-all-the-fish-screensavers dept.

X 428

Nirbo writes "FreeBSD switches to X.Org, The 'HEADSUP' can be found here, and on the -x11, -current, and -ports mailing lists. Very good news for those FreeBSD users who have either changed to X.Org in anticipation, or have been waiting in hope for this momentous change."

cancel ×

428 comments

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

Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791054)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791149)

Good News Everyone!
Mike Smith now works for Apple, who's OS is based on BSD.
Check it out: www.lemis.com/~grog/msmr.html [lemis.com]
and at: daemonnews, under "BSD at Apple" [daemonnews.org]
He didn't like the direction that v5 was taking so he quit and starting writing BSD code for Apple.

Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791226)

It's not like money had anything to do with it ...

Heh... (-1, Redundant)

Arctic Fox (105204) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791056)

Need I remind everyone that BSD is dying? ;)

Re:Heh... (1)

nil5 (538942) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791069)

No, it is already dead, fool.

silly trolls...

HOLLA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791057)

holla at ya boy

fp

i've done this many times.

holla back

WHUT WHUT WHUT

Re:HOLLA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791093)

I done hollah right back at cha, WHAT

So XFree Is Dead then (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791061)

Xfree appears to be dead then

Saying that if BSD is dying then does that mean X.org is dying too :p

Re:So XFree Is Dead then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791077)

No, the BSD license isn't viral like the GPL.

Re:So XFree Is Dead then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791257)

No, the BSD license isn't viral like the GPL.

You're right. M$ wouldn't have been able to steal it if it was GPL'ed.

Re:So XFree Is Dead then (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791422)

Microsoft didn't steal it. That's the nature of the BSD license. We don't care if you, Microsoft, or anybody else is using the code for commercial purposes.

It's a strength, not a weakness.

Re:So XFree Is Dead then (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791340)

GPL viral [metastatic.org] ? Are you an MBA or something? Fucking idiot.

no need to reply to this article (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791064)

Just copy and paste all the DISTRO moves to X.org comments and we're g2g!

fp()

So what will become of xfree? (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791065)

Everyone seems to be moving to xorg now. Where does this leave xfree? Not that I'm worried about it or anything.

BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791112)

Why do we even need FreeBSD when we have Linux? The developers of FreeBSD should abandon it and migrate over to Linux.

Steve Jobs would do the Open Source community a favor by replacing FreeBSD with Linux in the next iteration of the MacOS.

Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791164)

Actually most of the FreeBSD developers came from Linux.
Makes you think, doesn't it?

Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791204)

Bet you can't back that up.

Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791416)

Bet you can't back that up.

Well, you're right, but only because my CD burner isn't working right now.

Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD? (3, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791247)

Why? I like the XNU kernel and kernel extensions. I thought the last thing we wanted was a monoculture? Aren't we all trying to escape the monoculture of MSFT? Why advocate creating a new one?

Now that Gentoo has been ported to OSX, we have Darwin ports, fink and Gentoo Portage. Do you understand that Linux is just a kernel? We already have the userland BSD "and" GNU (what you seem to think is linux) on OSX so I don't see the point of switching kernels.

Apple contributes to KDE KHTML, BSD and various other open source projects. What is it exactly that you are complaining about again?

OSF is not "monoculture". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791361)

Linux was once managed by a dictator, Linus Torvalds. An army of volunteer programmers write code for the OS.

Linus has, long since, transferred control of the code to the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). There is no monoculture. Consensus among competing interests determines what enters Linux.

Personally, I would have preferred transferring control of Linux to CMU or MIT, but OSDL is cool. There is no monoculture. Nonetheless, there is no need for more than 2 OSes: Windows and Linux. Fragmenting the market into multiple OSes puts a burden on software developers. Developing and supporting multiple versions of software for a hundred different OSes is a waste of programmer effort.

Re:So what will become of xfree? (5, Funny)

wfberg (24378) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791155)

Everyone seems to be moving to xorg now. Where does this leave xfree?

Xfree86 will be featured on an upcoming episode of a new MTV hit-show presented by Ashton Kutcher, entitled "FORK'D!".

automatic configuration (4, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791066)

As a FreeBSD desktop user, I'm happy about this simply because of the easier configuration of X windows, regardless of the political aspects. (Well, I'm happy about that, too, since the licensing change of XF86 seemed bogus.) Configuring X has been one of the few remaining big barriers for both Linux and FreeBSD on the desktop.

Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system. I've had a lot of bad (system-breaking) experiences with it.

Re:automatic configuration (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791107)

Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade

O_o

What ever do you mean? I still to this day have not used portupgrade and all my systems are up-to-date.

Re:automatic configuration (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791159)

What ever do you mean? I still to this day have not used portupgrade and all my systems are up-to-date.
Oops! I was about to tell you to RTFA, but then I re-RTFA myself, and realized I'd mis-RTFA. Actually it says you can't do it with portupgrade. My bad :-)

All I meant about portupgrade in general is that there are a lot of situations where you upgrade a library, and recompiling all the affected applications and libraries becomes difficult unless you use portupgrade, but often portupgrade botches the process and you end up hosed.

Re:automatic configuration (0, Offtopic)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791273)

emerge -e world

It's not that hard. Yea OK, it might take a while on slower systems, but it's not hard or "system breaking".

Re:automatic configuration (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791319)

emerge -e world
Are you talking about FreeBSD, or Gentoo?

Re:automatic configuration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791337)

I think it's obvious [funroll-loops.org] .

Portupgrade neither necessary, nor sufficient (5, Informative)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791150)

Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system.

No. It says in the post:

To upgrade, you must remove your XFree86 ports and install the xorg
ports. It couldn't be done with portupgrade, unfortunately, because we
are keeping the XFree86 ports around.


In other words, you cannot automatically upgrade all the ports using portupgrade.

As for portupgrade becoming necessary, I don't know what you're talking about. While I use it (to keep my -CURRENT current), this is merely for convenience: I haven't seen any ports that depend on it.

Re:automatic configuration (1)

noselasd (594905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791284)

Does Xorg do configuration any diffrent than XFree on FreeBSD ?
I see no diffrence on the configuration on the Xorg linux
distros I've tried. (Then again most linux distro also
provide their own high level config tool as well, no
sweat.. )

good move for them (-1, Redundant)

bdigit (132070) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791070)

XFree86 is dyinggggggg

I wonder... (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791071)

I wonder who still uses xunfree86?

Re:I wonder... (4, Informative)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791104)

Heh, well all OS X users use a port of it, but who knows if they will switch too when Apple releases Tiger next year.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791348)

Ironical, isn't it? The only way to get a more free X distribution is to pay Apple $139 next year.

make.conf (4, Informative)

wassy121 (446363) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791076)

This is only in -CURRENT. For those of you in 5.2.1, or 4.10, you can add:

X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xorg

in /etc/make.conf. For those of you running -CURRENT that want the old X, make it:

X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xfree86-4

Who's Left? (1)

Mr. Frilly (6570) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791078)

So, what major linux distributions, BSD variants, or other operating systems are still using the XFree86 code base? Is the transition essentially complete?

Re:Who's Left? (4, Informative)

Homology (639438) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791119)

So, what major linux distributions, BSD variants, or other operating systems are still using the XFree86 code base? Is the transition essentially complete?

OpenBSD [openbsd.org] is still using the latest XFree86 4.4 release candidate with the old license+drivers. And NetBSD [netbsd.org] incorporated XFree86 4.4 with the new license.

It's on going... (0, Flamebait)

kewsh (655090) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791123)

Open source software has poorer levels of QA than proprietary solutions.

Re:Who's Left? (1)

Henriok (6762) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791166)

Mac OS X's X Server is still based on XFree86.. That might change with Tiger though.

lack of second side of the coin... again (-1, Troll)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791089)

bad news for those who don't wnat to switch to X.org because of some weird uncomprehenshible reasons. (not enough time to fiddle once again with configuration, too lazy, sick mother, etc...)

Re:lack of second side of the coin... again (1)

gabbarbhai (719706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791103)

Add one more example: running debian..

Re:lack of second side of the coin... again (2, Insightful)

strabo (58457) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791175)

bad news for those who are to lazy to rtfm.

If you want to keep the old XFree86 on -current, simply set
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xfree86-4 in make.conf

The lesson of X11.... (4, Interesting)

evenprime (324363) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791091)

The lesson of X11 is that you can be the most popular piece of software on every distribution, and it still doesn't give you the power to play dictator with your licence. If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code and the community will embrace them, not you. You would think that people would have figured that out after the ssh/openssh split. Now we have another example in windowing systems....

Re:The lesson of X11.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791102)

That's the beauty of OSS and a prime example why I embrace it over proprietary systems.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

Daniel Ellard (799842) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791157)

If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code... Not unless they can get the source in the first place and the license permits it. Otherwise we probably would have a fork of windows dating back to about 1988.

But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791171)

Thew new X license blocks anyone from linking a GPL program to it.

So they basically assed out gnome and even freebsd doesn't want to dump gnome so some asspuppy at X can have his ego stroked when there is a fine alternative.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

Daniel Ellard (799842) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791225)

The new X license blocks anyone from linking a GPL program to it.

I concur that this sucks.

But this raises a further question -- can they really do that? And why? I thought the main contribution of XFree was the server, which people don't link to anyway. The X11 libraries are non-trivial, but there are other forks of the original X consortium code so it seems stupid to even attempt this kind of restriction.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (2, Insightful)

cortana (588495) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791228)

People have been sick of the way xfree86.org have fucked up X11 development for years. The licensing issue was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. :)

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

Taladar (717494) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791200)

If you had ever compiled the Xfree yourself you would know that - compared to other build systems - Xfree was (is) a mess, the license issue was just the last bit of annoyances needed for most Distros to switch to something better/make something better themselves.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

Daniel Ellard (799842) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791235)

If you had ever compiled the Xfree yourself you would know...

I guess I'm just lucky and/or the FreeBSD ports people do a great job, but I've never had a problem rebuilding XFree86 (except for the fact that it takes overnight to compile on my slow system...)

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

J. J. Ramsey (658) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791279)

"I guess I'm just lucky and/or the FreeBSD ports people do a great job, but I've never had a problem rebuilding XFree86 (except for the fact that it takes overnight to compile on my slow system...)"

That's not the issue. The problem is that the XFree86 build system is such that to compile one little bit of X, the whole of the X source tree has to be rebuilt. Right now, Xorg has that same problem, but its developers are working on fixing it.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791312)

But that's hardly surprising since the fork is still fairly new. It's basically the same code. I'm looking forward to see how they progress in the next year or two because they could make a really good system if the keep on the right track.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (5, Interesting)

XO (250276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791311)

Although definitely not like any other build procedure I have ever seen in the free software world, X is probably the one piece of software that I have never had ANY problems whatsoever in building, re-building, installing, re-installing, etc.

Though I did have a big ass problem with Debian refusing to let apt do it's things the right way when I "broke" the X installation by installing a source-built XFree 4.3.0 over the then-Debian-supplied XFree 4.2.0. This is when I discovered that (a) dpkg sucks (b) Debian's X installation is a spaghetti mess (c) it's virtually impossible to remove XFree packages from a Debian installation and not remove every other program that uses X on the system, which is why I had to just plain install source-built XF over the top of the Debian installed one.

On the bright side, every time apt- would hork the XFree installation by changes having happened to the Debian files during an apt-get, a simple "make World" made my entire X installation back to the way it was supposed to be.

Now, on the other hand, I've never even cracked the bindings of XFree source. I imagine, that it's probably a myriad of horrible hacked crap dating back 10-15 years or more in several places. I imagine that it's a completely unmaintainable nightmare. And I also completely understand that there was virtually NO development happening beyond bug fixes and the occasional tweak type enhancement to XFree. XF 4 was a major update but that was still like 2 years ago. 4.1, 4.2 were mostly bug fixes, 4.3 completed some of th features for 4.0, and fixed more bugs.

I'm really curious as to if there are any differences between X.org and XFree86 in th software, yet?

Re:The lesson of X11.... (5, Informative)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791266)

But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?

They added an advertising clause. Similar to the old BSD license.

There's a reasonable argument that the license change by itself didn't cause the exodus. It was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. There has been friction between the XFree developers and the rest of the FLOSS community for quite some time. There has even been considerable friction within the XFree team which led to the infamous "eviction" of Keith. But until recently there haven't been any realistic alternatives to XFree.

It remains to be seen whether Xorg can deliver better than XFree. Initial signs are promising; the codebase is being broken up and autotooled, cutting edge extensions like Xcomposite are being integrated, some of the best and brightest have committed themselves to Xorg instead of XFree, the distributions are backing Xorg over XFree, and (most important of all) the Xorg developers are COMMUNICATING with the rest of freedesktop.org (eg, the projects that build upon X11/XFree/Xorg). Those changes alone are a significant improvement over XFree.

Re:The lesson of X11.... (5, Interesting)

edhall (10025) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791213)

I don't think this shift is entirely a license issue. I was chatting with one of the FreeBSD core team guys around the time the decision was being made, and he felt that the frustration of getting fixes fed back into the XFree86 code base in a timely manner was a big part of the motivation. And this certainly isn't the first time I've heard complaints of XFree86 foot-dragging by the FreeBSD folks.

I guess you might say it's all of a piece -- the XFree86 user community simply didn't find the developers responsive (whether on license or technology), and when X.org proved a viable alternative, they voted with their feet.

-Ed

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791305)

The licensing change was the "straw that broke the camel's back" -- until then, all anybody did was talk about forking

Re:The lesson of X11.... (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791315)

Hey I tried googling for it but wasnt able to turn up anything. Just wondering what happened with ssh? (Sorry for being a pain / am sortofa newbie regarding following the industry n all :D)

Who is left...? (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791110)

Yes, Slashdotters, which among the major distros is left? Anyone know whether X.org is doing anything about the [horrible] Linux fonts found in major default Linux installs? I have always had to install M$ fonts or run the webfonts.sh script to get decent fonts. This is shameful! The Linux gurus create a world class OS but have not yet made fonts for Linux? What do you think?

Re:Who is left...? (0)

realmolo (574068) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791142)

Well, the bitch is that the GOOD fonts aren't free. So those nice versions of Arial and Times New Roman and Courier and all the standards that your'e used to in Windows and MacOS? Not free to distribute. Not at all.

Haven't you ever noticed that the only free fonts you can get are generally "novelty" fonts? Everything that looks good for everyday use is copyrighted to hell and back.

So don't expect good fonts to come with Linux any time soon.

AND THIS PROVES IT! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791162)

Open Sores and "Free" just doesn't work for everyday use.

Re:Who is left...? (3, Informative)

gabbarbhai (719706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791169)

The free Bitstream fonts are not all that bad for the desktop..

Re:Who is left...? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791181)

well that just how things are these days. anything looking, sounding or similar that is anywhere near good is patented, copyrighted or in other ways pay pr use/access/consume/view...

velcome to the corporate world...

Welcome to reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791208)

Sorry shit-lick, people can't feed their families with free.

Re:Who is left...? (1)

Feztaa (633745) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791217)

Out of curiosity, are you saying that Bitstream Vera is not good enough, or just that you've never heard of it?

Because I haven't seen an ugly font on my linux box in quite a while.

Re:Who is left...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791219)

Not at all. Maybe not 1st class but I can live with this:
* media-fonts/artwiz-fonts
Latest version available: 2.4
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of downloaded files: 35 kB
Homepage: http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/docs/artwiz-fonts.p hp
Description: Artwiz Fonts
License: GPL-2

* media-fonts/freefonts
Latest version available: 0.10-r2
Latest version installed: 0.10-r2
Size of downloaded files: 2,366 kB
Homepage: http://www.gimp.org
Description: A Collection of Free Type1 Fonts
License: freedist

* media-fonts/intlfonts
Latest version available: 1.2.1
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of downloaded files: 23,789 kB
Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/directory/intlfonts.html
Description: International X11 fixed fonts
License: GPL-2

* media-fonts/lfpfonts-fix
Latest version available: 0.82-r1
Latest version installed: 0.82-r1
Size of downloaded files: 13 kB
Homepage: http://dreamer.nitro.dk/linux/lfp/
Description: Linux Font Project fixed-width fonts
License: public-domain

* media-fonts/lfpfonts-var
Latest version available: 0.83
Latest version installed: 0.83
Size of downloaded files: 353 kB
Homepage: http://dreamer.nitro.dk/linux/lfp/
Description: Linux Font Project variable-width fonts
License: public-domain

* media-fonts/sharefonts
Latest version available: 0.10-r1
Latest version installed: 0.10-r1
Size of downloaded files: 732 kB
Homepage: http://www.gimp.org/fonts.html
Description: A Collection of True Type Fonts
License: public-domain

* media-fonts/urw-fonts
Latest version available: 2.1
Latest version installed: 2.1
Size of downloaded files: 3,710 kB
Homepage:
Description: free good quality fonts gpl'd by URW++
License: GPL-2

Re:Who is left...? (1)

Thagg (9904) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791239)

It is a wonderful feature of fonts that the shape of the glyphs themselves is well-nigh uncopyrightable. Which is the reason that Postscript fonts are programs -- the programs *are* copyrightable. The names of the fonts, as well, can be protected by trademark and potentially by copyright.

But there's nothing to prevent one from making a beautiful font that looks extremely like Palatino or Times Roman for Linux -- except that it would take a significant amount of effort.

I worked with the management of Bitstream back when they were creating their font library back in the mid eighties. They hires famous font designers to recreate things that looked a lot like familiar fonts. They had something called "Swiss" which looked a lot like the normal "Helvetica" (Helvetica is latin for Switzerland). They hired Zapf to create their version of Palatino. Bitstream, of course, made beautiful fonts on their own, too -- most notably the Lucida family.

Thad Beier

Re:Who is left...? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791398)

...and there is no way to write a program that would scan the display and make a high res SVG out of the fonts then create a font form the SVGs? I know little to nothing about graphics programming but with everything I have seen done with the gimp and script-fu it seems like there would be a way to import the fonts into inkscape (diffrent program I know) and generate SVGs that could then be hand verfied rather quickly and generate a font out of them?

Re:Who is left...?like (4, Informative)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791283)

I agree on the AC post about bitstream vera fonts. They look very good on the notoriously unforgiving notebook screens. I prefer them over the standard ms fonts i had to install to check compatibility of web page layouts. Try them for yourself.

Re:Who is left...? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791346)

What about the Vera fonts (which ReactOS also uses)?

Moll.

Uninformed or troll, there is Bitstream Vera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791173)

For some time Bitstream Vera TTFs are avaliable and they're acceptable. Of course, they aren't original Helvetica nor Arial (which is a clone of Helvetica to avoid paying rights, btw).

Re:Who is left...? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791193)

http://www.bitstream.com/categories/products/fonts /vera/

Re:Who is left...? (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791195)

I like Luxi fonts, but for some reason they anti-alias like shit on Gentoo, meaning that I can't use them for daily use.

Irritates the ass out of me, it does.

Re:Who is left...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791210)

Bitstream released an excellent set of fonts that are bundled with most linux distros now. I'm not sure what their motives were, but they really are good, pro-quality fonts.

For some benighted reason, they're not always the default, but just select "bitstream vera" and you're away. The worst offender, IMHO is KDE on Debian, which for some reason defaults to a pig-ugly Serif font. Turn on antialiasing, use the bitstream font, and kde is fine.

Re:Who is left...? (1)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791215)

apt-get install ttf-bitstream-vera, and you have purty fonts. Most distros I know use them, they are fairly common (also in BSD land, I presume)

Debian hasn't switched to X.org yet, but has committed itself to do so. I believe mandrake still uses XFree86 by default too.

Wait, that was a troll, wasn't it? :)

Fonts (1)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791237)

Good font design is difficult, time consuming and not very exciting for the "Linux guru". There is the Bitstream Vera font family [gnome.org] available. It's been covered on /. twice: announcement [slashdot.org] and release [slashdot.org] .

By the way, fonts are fonts really. You've got TrueType and PostScript mainly and they tend to work cross platform. There's no need to have "Linux" fonts. Now if you meant "open source" fonts, that would be a different matter.

Re:Who is left...? (1)

f16c (13581) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791262)

I think you're a dork.
If you have ugly fonts on your system and you are using a recent install then you didn't read any of the documentation that came with your setup or you blew the partition away to give more room to XP. X.org uses the same font architecture and layout as XFree does. There are pleny of lovely fonts out there to install as you see fit. SuSE 9.0 (yeah the last one) installs plenty of pretty fonts for you as I believe Mandrake does. Slack puts things in different places but the parts are largely the same and supports anti-aliasing just like the other distros. Why are you still whineing about this now? See:

http://patriot.net/~scoile/fonts/fixing-2.html/ [patriot.net]

for the real deal.

Re:Who is left...? (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791289)

With the nice gift of the Vera font family to the community, default fonts on most recent distros looks very nice, even preferrable to windows. For web page viewing, still prefer to install the MS core fonts, though. Maybe distro makers should have the webfonts.sh script run during install to fetch the fonts for you.

Fonts are much, much harder to do than simple software. I'd sooner not have cheap Times New Roman knockoffs in my distro, thank you very much. There are folks out there who make fonts, and some are very good. Maybe they will donate them, like bitstream did, to the community for use by all. Fonts are one of the last bastions of proprietarism, although in theory you can copy font shapes all you want.

Re:Who is left...? (1)

thinkninja (606538) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791341)

Well, Debian is still using XFree86 but they aren't switching to X.org at all. Instead they're going with freedesktop.org's modular trees (xlibs/xserver/xapps) sometime in the future.

As for fonts, I personally like Nimbus Sans and Andale Mono -- free Adobe PS look-alike fonts.

FAQ: sellfone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791144)

Q: Why'd he do it?
A: Because he hated life, and life hated him back, why else would you kill yourself? Because you're a fat loser living in his parents' basement.

Marlon Brando Used it.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791154)

So I use it too. If it's good enough for an oscar wimming actore i'ts goood enough for me.

Name change... (2, Interesting)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791185)

I know this is stupid but I'm glad for the name change of the X-server that ever is using. Because it always seemed weird to be running XFree86 on a PPC It's nice that the new standard has an architecture neutral name. I'm assuming the 86 came from x86.

Re:Name change... (1)

Jane_Dozey (759010) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791330)

Yeah. The "Free86" is supposed to be a word play on "386". You know how these OSS guys like to put double meaning in their names ;)
So you're right. XFree86 sounds a bit weird on a PPC.

Is this the place? (5, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791192)

I don't know if this is the best place to mention this, but I like to pronounce "X.org" like it was all one word, i.e. sounding like "Zorg". It sounds like some futuristic GUI monster that would crush towns at its whim. This alone is enough to justify Xorg the Conqueror's rising popularity and XFree86's decline. I mean, XFree86 sounds kind of like a fighter jet, which while kind of cool, would be useless against Xorg. He would use an XFree86 fighter jet to pick his teeth! All hail Xorg!

Re:Is this the place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791214)

I for one would like to welcome our new Xorg overlord.

Re:Is this the place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791253)

I was expecting many things from this thread, your comment was not one of them. I'm sure the name will go down well with the MS folk who pronounce SQL as "sequel", "Run XORG, drool and click on random graphics!" In XORG Microsoft have found an enemy with an evil sounding name, poor XORG.

Anyone for the Fifth Element? (2, Interesting)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791272)

Been done before I'm afraid. The 'evil monster' in The Fifth Element [imdb.com] is Dr. Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg.

Re:Anyone for the Fifth Element? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791306)

australian rules football is my god

Short Domain (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791218)

That's the shortest domain name I've ever seen.

I guess to beat that, you'd need to go with a country code domain.

Re:Short Domain (4, Interesting)

wfberg (24378) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791316)

I guess to beat that, you'd need to go with a country code domain.

ai [ai] and dk [dk] should work.
Due to DNS weirdness you might need to add a dot, as in ai. [ai.] and dk. [dk.]

Re:Short Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791409)

http://u.tf/ :)

whats the difference? (1)

xot (663131) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791220)

im just a common freebsd user, free86 works fine for me.I guess X.org will to.Are there any major implications for us unknowing users??
I guess thats what most normal users are concerened about.

Re:whats the difference? (1)

agraupe (769778) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791242)

I switched a while back on gentoo, and nope, none at all. The same conf file can be kept, and it is invisible to the user. It should work fine.

Re:whats the difference? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791293)

The major implication is that the new project organization and stucture will allow actual development to happen -- the big problem with XFree was that the people in charge sucked, and didn't allow many improvements to get in. Hopefully now we'll see stuff like 3d acceleration in the main codebase.

Re:whats the difference? (1)

mikefe (98074) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791351)

You mean there were alternate source code trees that had patches to do 3D acceleration?

The last I heard, the patches would be submitted, but never acknowledged and integrated.

Too bad a patchset for xfree86 didn't spring up that followed the latest releases.

Oh well, we have XOrg now so it's a moot point.

I'm getting laid !!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791222)

That's right, I've switched to FreeBSD...

Micheal Likes Men (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791248)

That being said, the real website for BSD is located at www.diddlers.info.

NOW PEOPLE LEts keeping the fucking posts on topic you sick fuckers!

Now sign the fucking guestbook shitbags.

Xorg vs XFree86 (1)

noselasd (594905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791299)

Setting aside the license diffrence, could anyone objectivily give
a brief summary on the current status of Xorg vs XFree ? (e.g. what's
better/newer/fixed in one vs the other), and are there any future
goals that differs greatily between them (what's planned for Xorg, what's planned for XFree)?

Linux sucks. Here's why. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791339)

Scanner: not recognized.
Modem: not recognized.
Printer: not recognized.

So, why should I use Linux, if it "does not work" (the ultimate test)?

You should spend more time on making Linux usable for non-geeks, instead of making fools of everywone who isn't a cli-guru.

Well - let'm come now! Yeahhh keep those flames coming!

FreeBSD is dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9791410)

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save *BSD at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

What about Apple? (1)

Chiisu (462604) | more than 10 years ago | (#9791414)

Will Apple follow FreeBSD's lead, or not?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>