| |||||||||||||
The 2013 "State of X.Org" reportThe 2013 "State of X.Org" reportPosted Feb 26, 2013 20:01 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332)In reply to: The 2013 "State of X.Org" report by Kit Parent article: The 2013 "State of X.Org" report
> The OP was wanting a way to get his feet wet in the world of Linux graphics / X (that's not an easy world to get into, due to the massive complexity of them).
lol... i understood the "suggestion"... but is the X system more complex than Linux kernel ?
Not by shadows. Perhaps i'm not getting why... but it seems to me that perhaps X is not easy to get into because its too "closed"... perhaps it doesn't have the proper versioning infrastructure for patch verification discussion and applying...
That is what i was trying to say, and it seems to me quite readable and understandable. Follow the Linux kernel example, that AFAIK never stopped from being improved and most important never stopped from being ABI compatible since the series 2.
(Log in to post comments)
The 2013 "State of X.Org" report Posted Feb 26, 2013 20:13 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Ooops!
that is a "suggestion" not an order ... ok ?
The 2013 "State of X.Org" report Posted Feb 26, 2013 21:37 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] is the X system more complex than Linux kernel ?It's more complex than the drivers which most people work on, I'd say, and there isn't really an analogue of the driver layer in the X server: it's a complex and old and involuted and rather brittle hairball in many ways, and like the kernel it too has ways in which you can make mistakes which don't show up until it is too late to fix them (mostly mistakes in extension protocol design). perhaps X is not easy to get into because its too "closed"... perhaps it doesn't have the proper versioning infrastructure for patch verification discussion and applyingWhatever you mean by 'closed', it is not clarified by your 'proper versioning infrastructure' comment, which simply makes no sense. Lack of what could be called 'review bandwidth' is an issue, but that's a human problem, not a problem that can be solved by 'proper infrastructure' unless you consider skilled X hackers to be 'infrastructure'. X is not notably unapproachable as free software projects go. You'll probably get a much kinder reception on the X list than on the linux-kernel list -- assuming you can get anyone to find the time to pay attention to you!
The 2013 "State of X.Org" report Posted Feb 26, 2013 21:51 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
the kinder reception is great then... and perhaps a point in front of Linux kernel then.
But why not "imitate" the rest ? .. perhaps it could have more than 1 point in front of linux kernel, imitating its "modus operandi".
The 2013 "State of X.Org" report Posted Feb 27, 2013 18:03 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I don't understand how you could expect the X server to 'imitate' Linux's architecture of a complicated core and relatively simple drivers. An X server simply does a different job: it's not going to have that architecture any more than, say, a compiler would. You can't "just" totally rearchitect software without reimplementing it completely anyway (which is, surprise, what Wayland is doing).
The 2013 "State of X.Org" report Posted Feb 26, 2013 22:06 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
> assuming you can get anyone to find the time to pay attention to you!
there is a folks saying in my country full of wisdom (IMO);
" with the proper housing, resilience and persistence, there isn't lacking than doesn't end up in festival "
|
|||||||||||||