|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > December 2005 > XFree and X
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Walter Mitty 2005-12-14, 7:46 am |
|
Could someone just take the time to explain to me the relationship
between X, X.org and XFree86?
I have googled but find a lot of conflicting information.
I understand the concept of the X Server, but fail to completely
understsnd how XFree86 and XOrg are related : whether complementary or
not. In particfular I have found a lot of conflicting advice on
enabling 3d HW - some saying to play with an XFree86 config file,
others suggesting xorg.conf.
If th X.Org folks produce a free X Server and the XFree86 folks do
(assuming they are rivals), which is the one of choice? How does this
influence my choice/use of either Gnome or KDE. Does the use of Gnome
or KDE influence the likelihood of me getting 3d acceleration working?
I think I'm at one of those "cant see the wood for the trees" phases
and no more manual browsing is going to clarify any of this.
Wise words or a link to a clear website gratefully received.
| |
| Captain Dondo 2005-12-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:04 +0000, Walter Mitty wrote:
>
> Could someone just take the time to explain to me the relationship
> between X, X.org and XFree86?
>
X is a network graphics 'standard'. Google for MIT Athena and you should
find lots of information on how it got started.
Both XFree86 and Xorg seek to implement the X standard.
XFree86 is an old project with lots of legacy code. Much of the code has
licenses which are incompatible in some way or another with GPL.
Xorg is a new(er) project which seeks to reproduce all of the
functionality of XFree86 while rewriting all of the non-GPL code to create
an unencumbered GPL only codebase.
I wouldn't say they are competitors; more like Xorg is the new generation
and XFree86 is slowly dying. I may be wrong on the last.... But I see
more and more people migrating to Xorg.
| |
| Walter Mitty 2005-12-14, 5:48 pm |
| In an earlier post, Captain Dondo postulated:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:04 +0000, Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
> X is a network graphics 'standard'. Google for MIT Athena and you should
> find lots of information on how it got started.
>
> Both XFree86 and Xorg seek to implement the X standard.
>
> XFree86 is an old project with lots of legacy code. Much of the code has
> licenses which are incompatible in some way or another with GPL.
>
> Xorg is a new(er) project which seeks to reproduce all of the
> functionality of XFree86 while rewriting all of the non-GPL code to create
> an unencumbered GPL only codebase.
>
> I wouldn't say they are competitors; more like Xorg is the new generation
> and XFree86 is slowly dying. I may be wrong on the last.... But I see
> more and more people migrating to Xorg.
Thanks. Where in my system config is the decision made? How can I tell?
--
"I don't see any naked native girls hungry for affection" - Pete Lorre.
20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.
| |
| Bill Marcum 2005-12-14, 5:48 pm |
| On 14 Dec 2005 13:55:44 GMT, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. Where in my system config is the decision made? How can I tell?
>
If you use Debian or a Debian-based distro, the X server package is
either xserver-xfree86 or xserver-xorg. I think Sarge has xfree86.
--
Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts
down the system for days.
| |
| Shannon Lloyd 2005-12-14, 5:48 pm |
| Captain Dondo wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:04 +0000, Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
>
>
> X is a network graphics 'standard'. Google for MIT Athena and you should
> find lots of information on how it got started.
>
> Both XFree86 and Xorg seek to implement the X standard.
>
> XFree86 is an old project with lots of legacy code. Much of the code has
> licenses which are incompatible in some way or another with GPL.
>
> Xorg is a new(er) project which seeks to reproduce all of the
> functionality of XFree86 while rewriting all of the non-GPL code to create
> an unencumbered GPL only codebase.
>
> I wouldn't say they are competitors; more like Xorg is the new generation
> and XFree86 is slowly dying. I may be wrong on the last.... But I see
> more and more people migrating to Xorg.
I thought it was more along the lines of:
X is a windowing system for Unix and Unix-like systems originally
developed by MIT in the 1984. It went through a bunch of versions
(actually different/improved client/server protocols, not just updated
versions of X), developed by various groups, until DEC built X version
11 (X11) in 1987, which is the protocol still in use today. There were
various releases of X using the X11 protocol, hence X11R2, X11R3, X11R6
etc. As X11 became popular, MIT didn't want to have to handle it on
their own, so a group (made up of X vendors) was formed called the X
Consortium to handle it. The X Consortium eventually handed control over
to The Open Group, which eventually formed x.org. So x.org was in charge
of the overall handling of X11.
XFree86 started as a X386 version of X11 in the early 90s. XFree86
joined x.org as a member, so they're not really competing entities. But
almost all the dev work on X11 was being done by XFree86 by this time,
ie x.org wasn't doing much of anything. In 2004, XFree86 released
version 4.4 of their X server, but hardly anyone liked the new license,
as it was viewed by many to be incompatible with the GPL. So in 2004 a
new group was formed, The X.Org Foundation, and they forked the XFree86
codebase (they used the last GPL-compatible version, not 4.4 - I think
they might have used a 4.4 release candidate?). This new
group/foundation got control of the x.org domain name from the previous
x.org group, and they released the first version of x.org.
So, in short, X is the X Windowing System. X11 is the 11th version of
it. X.Org was the group in charge of looking after its development.
XFree86 developed a version of X and joined X.Org as a member. XFree86
became the most popular version of X. X.Org formed the X.Org Foundation
when XFree86 released a version that wasn't (seen to be) GPL-compatible,
forking the XFree86 code, and producing the x.org windowing system. So
you can just think of x.org as a fork of XFree86 (but not a reproduction
of it), both of which are X server implementations.
Ok, that was lengthy enough that I'm sure it's full of mistakes 
Shannon
| |
| Shannon Lloyd 2005-12-14, 5:48 pm |
| Shannon Lloyd wrote:
> Captain Dondo wrote:
>
>
>
> I thought it was more along the lines of:
>
<snip>
>
> Shannon
Oh, and Sarge still uses XFree86 because they didn't want to introduce
the newer x.org while they were busy trying to get everything nice and
stable for a release. This is why testing/unstable has x.org, but stable
still has XFree86. To the best of my knowledge, Sarge is probably the
last release of anything which will ever use XFree86. Everyone is moving
(or has already moved) to x.org by now.
Shannon
| |
|
|
>
>
> Thanks. Where in my system config is the decision made? How can I tell?
Quick and dirty - look in /etc/X11 - if you see xorg.conf it's xorg; if
not, then it's not.
| |
| Walter Mitty 2005-12-15, 5:47 pm |
| In an earlier post, ray postulated:
>
>
> Quick and dirty - look in /etc/X11 - if you see xorg.conf it's xorg; if
> not, then it's not.
>
Thanks.
Ubuntu 5.10 is based on Debian Sarge is it not? And Shannon said that
uses XFree86. Why the difference?
| |
| Ruediger 2005-12-15, 5:47 pm |
| Walter Mitty wrote:
>
> Could someone just take the time to explain to me the relationship
> between X, X.org and XFree86?
>
> I have googled but find a lot of conflicting information.
>
> I understand the concept of the X Server, but fail to completely
> understsnd how XFree86 and XOrg are related : whether complementary or
> not. In particfular I have found a lot of conflicting advice on
> enabling 3d HW - some saying to play with an XFree86 config file,
> others suggesting xorg.conf.
>
Funny thing: I posted several times before trying to elaborate a problem
which behaves like as if to solidify Walter's thoughts. Under XFree I have
3D accel, but slower than non-3Daccel on Xorg. On XFree I can play, for
example, TuxRacer with .8 fps, on xorg I can not - but GLXGears works both
times, 1.2fps on XFree and 200fps on Xorg... But noone is able to help me
tracking where the heck Intels i915 Chipset is making Debian tilt out, or?
--
Sincerely
Ruediger
| |
| Shannon Lloyd 2005-12-15, 5:47 pm |
| Walter Mitty wrote:
> In an earlier post, ray postulated:
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ubuntu 5.10 is based on Debian Sarge is it not? And Shannon said that
> uses XFree86. Why the difference?
I would imagine that the Ubuntu folks decided that they wanted something
more recent than Sarge's XFree86 (which by now is quite old), so they
would have had to go with x.org to remain GPL-compatible. Although
Ubuntu is based on Debian, they obviously modify it quite a bit for
their own needs. I don't actually know if 5.10 is based on Sarge. I'd be
surprised if it were, to be honest. I would have thought that a more
likely approach would be to take a snapshot of Debian testing (which,
btw, uses xorg), spend a few months working out whatever bugs are in it
and making all the Ubuntu-specific modifications, and then release that.
That would fit better with Ubuntu's more frequent release schedule.
Shannon
| |
| Bill Marcum 2005-12-15, 5:47 pm |
| On 15 Dec 2005 18:07:52 GMT, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> In an earlier post, ray postulated:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ubuntu 5.10 is based on Debian Sarge is it not? And Shannon said that
> uses XFree86. Why the difference?
Debian supports a multitude of platforms, while Ubuntu supports only
x86, x86_64 and PPC. Sarge became stable in June 2005, about 3 years
after Woody, while Ubuntu is committed to a stable release every 6
months. Ubuntu 5.04 had x.org and several other packages in newer
versions than those in Sarge, if I'm not mistaken.
--
You will be honored for contributing your time and skill to a worthy cause.
|
|
|
|
|