From ubuntu-users  Sat Oct 16 03:47:48 2004
From: jan.moren () lucs ! lu ! se (Jan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mor=E9n?=)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:47:48 +0000
To: ubuntu-users
Subject: XFree86 vs. XOrg
Message-Id: <1097898468.7408.23.camel () localhost ! localdomain>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=ubuntu-users&m=139114867832278

fre 2004-10-15 klockan 20:33 -0700 skrev Daniel Stone:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:15:58PM -0400, Brett K wrote:
> > On Friday 15 October 2004 at 22:24+0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > > > is XOrg a thing to be regarded for Ubuntu?
> > > yepp, in the next release it's planned.
> > 
> > Is there anything new and exciting in XOrg? I remember reading
> > somewhere that they will eventually add transparency. How far
> > away is that?
> 
> Transparency (through Composite) has been added, as well as Damage
> (which can be practically used to slice network bandwidth in half), and
> the Event Interception Extension.  Composite and XEVIE are a great pair
> for accessibility applications.
> 
> But the most crucial part of any X release is support for newer
> chipsets, et al, in drivers, and X.Org has that in spades.  The crux of
> our backporting (some 250,000 lines of patches) is to do with bringing
> driver support back to our version of XFree86 4.3.

IDKWITA (I Don't Know What I'm Talking About), but I am a little
surprised that you've determined that it was less work to backport a hue
amount of fixes to 4.3 was less effort than working to stabilize X.org
(especially considering that it has gotten fairly wide testing in other
distros already).

Out of curiosity, what factors did determine this?



-- 
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
 
Tel. (Japan) 090-3622 8920            Dr. Jan Mor?n (mr)
                                      Dept. of Cognitive Science
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren    Lund, Sweden