Is X.org the X Consortium? [LWN.net]

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 22:43 UTC (Thu) by richardfish (guest, #20657)
In reply to: Is X.org the X Consortium? by tedickey
Parent article: X.Org Foundation releases X Window System X11R6.7

Ok, I'll agree that people should generally do some more research before posting. But posts like this are as bad as mis-information.

I am guessing that you are "Thomas E Dickey", the maintainer for xterm for XFree86. If so, you are in a better position than any of us to enlighten us on the relationship/history between X.org, the X Consortium, and XFree86. While I don't expect you to post a 300-page history-of-X here, a couple of sentances and URLs would have been helpful.

I'll post my best understanding of things. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

The X Window System is really a set of specifications that are versioned (X11R6 is X Windows System version 11 revision 6). Any vendors distributing "X Windows" should (must?) comply with those specifications.

The X Consortium maintained the specifications, backed by reference source code. In 1996 it transferred that job to The Open Group which formed X.org to take on the task. Now in 2004, that job will be done by the "X.Org Foundation", which is really just a name change so that it can call it's forked version of XFree86 "X.org". Are we confused yet?

Bottom line: they are not the same, but they do the same job.

References:
http://www.opengroup.org/tech/desktop/Press_Releases/xccloses.htm
http://www.x.org/XOrg_background.html

(Log in to post comments)

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:41 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>Ok, I'll agree that people should generally do some more research before >posting. But posts like this are as bad as mis-information.
Not exactly. What's obvious to me may not be obvious to you.

I was not much interested in the slice dealing with the derivation of
X.Org from X/Open from X Consortium, but the statement that XFree86 only
distributes applications that are "X.Org" got my attention. Since about
a third of the applications are modified by XFree86 (and most of the
remaining ones were not touched by anyone since ~1998), it was worth
pointing out that it was incorrect. (Saying it was "X.Org" doubled
the points since "X.Org" dates after the related code).

There are other issues that come to mind, but I don't want to start
a new thread.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:52 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>The X Consortium maintained the specifications, backed by reference source >code. In 1996 it transferred that job to The Open Group which formed X.org >to take on the task. Now in 2004, that job will be done by the "X.Org >Foundation", which is really just a name change so that it can call it's >forked version of XFree86 "X.org". Are we confused yet?
Still a little confused: "X.Org" (the current one) dates from January.
The paperwork to set it up dates from last fall (September).

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:59 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>I am guessing that you are "Thomas E Dickey", the maintainer for xterm for >XFree86.
yes
>If so, you are in a better position than any of us to enlighten us on the >relationship/history between X.org, the X Consortium, and XFree86. While I >don't expect you to post a 300-page history-of-X here, a couple of >sentances and URLs would have been helpful.
Probably not: describing the current X.org properly would require
some speculation on the dynamics of the situation. (I don't like
to speculate, and don't see any point in arguing about opinions).

There was a much-toned-down history of X on this website recently.
That's enough to get up to about a year ago. Current events are
harder to report (every reporter thinks he's a general).