Talk:XFree86
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rootless
According to the current article, "rootless X" is X running as an ordinary user, without uid 0. However, in X, "root" has a different meaning: not the superuser, but the entire screen area treated as a single fixed window. For instance, the image viewer xv has a "set root image" function that sets the desktop background. I always thought that "rootless" referred to this, especially with Mac OS X: at first the X root covered up the OS X native gui, so that X was a separate desktop and you had to be in one or the other at a given time; later, "rootless" allowed X windows to appear over the regular OS X desktop. I'm pretty sure the article is mistaken about this. I don't think it has anything to do with uid. Reuben 04:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Release history
Most of the innovation in X in the '90s happened in XFree86, so that stuff needs to be listed in the release history in this article. I've listed XAA and XRender so far (though I'm not sure I've got the right versions for either of these) - anyone else able to add to the list, with a ref? - David Gerard 15:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article Tense
I know that XFree86 is still being updated, but, given that no Linux/Unix distributor ships versions with the license problem, I propose that the article ought generally to adopt the past tense rather than the present tense. However, before doing the edit, I'd like to see if there's a strong argument against such a move. Anyone want to share an opinion on this?
- Yes. I don't see the point in putting this to the past tense. The fork doesn't mean xfree86 is dead (still being updated as you mentioned, and NetBSD uses it), just not as popular. eg. "XFree86 was an implementation of the X Window System.": that's not correct, it's still an implementation. The rest of the article would also be wrong. Wait before the project is completely discontinued. 66.131.163.253 17:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GNU/LINUX
should we bow down to the FSF or should we follow normal usage? I vote for the latter. Plugwash 00:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] whats actually in 4.5.0 and 4.6.0?
is there any notable original stuff or is it just repackaging of work from other branches? Plugwash 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well this blog post is funny about it: [1]. Not closer to any release notes though. ❝Sverdrup❞ 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "the official reference implementation of X11"?
The article says this title is now held by X.org, but doesn't explain how this came to be, and who allots the title - or is this just an inflated way of saying: "...it's really popular now..."? -Snori 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
