Re: [dwm] nanox
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > I have a completely new WS in mind, design-wise with no X > dependency, just an X legacy support layer instead. > ... , we want a different WS, not a state-machine WS like X. Do you envision including xcb style asynchrony? /john
Re: [dwm] nanox
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:53:30AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > 2009/5/20 Jacob Todd : > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote: > >> > > > > Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just > > clean > > up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org > > seems li > > ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for > > everyone. > > Unfortunately that's not my intention. I have a completely new WS in > mind, design-wise with no X dependency, just an X legacy support layer > instead. The crucial part of X imho is the hardware support, that's > why I want to stick to xorg-drivers*, just because that's the bit > which can't be done properly without driver experts. X.org can't be > fixed because it consists of all the X10 and X11 legacy we don't want > to carry on in a new WS, we want a different WS, not a state-machine > WS like X. And X.org won't be willing to accept patches which change > its internal behavior radically. > > Kind regards, > Anselm > Before; for some odd reason, I was thinking you (we?) wanted to drop legacy X11 support and just start completely over. Now that I know there's legacy support this seems like a good idea.
Re: [dwm] nanox
2009/5/20 Jacob Todd : > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote: >> > > Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just > clean > up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems > li > ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for > everyone. Unfortunately that's not my intention. I have a completely new WS in mind, design-wise with no X dependency, just an X legacy support layer instead. The crucial part of X imho is the hardware support, that's why I want to stick to xorg-drivers*, just because that's the bit which can't be done properly without driver experts. X.org can't be fixed because it consists of all the X10 and X11 legacy we don't want to carry on in a new WS, we want a different WS, not a state-machine WS like X. And X.org won't be willing to accept patches which change its internal behavior radically. Kind regards, Anselm
Re: [dwm] nanox
Hi pancake, 2009/5/19 pancake : > I have been looking a bit for an alternative for X11, and I found nano-X > quite interesting, > but it is currently an abandoned project. 8000 LOCs, there's an abstraction > library to wrap > libX11 and there's support for some many IO devices (tty, gpm, ..) It runs > directly writing > on fb0, but it shouldnt be hard to make it run as Xnest (for testing > purposes) or draw a > xorg-driver layer to directly run with native graphics drivers. > > The source looks quite clean and I think we can use it as base for the > minimal X replacement. > > ARG, what do you think about this? :) I'm looking at it and must confess it could be some starting point. > There's little movement in the mailing list nowadays, but the last release > is from 1999. So I > can think that the project is dead. > > Here's the last release of nanox (0.4) > http://www.tucows.com/download.html?software_id=9833&t=2 > > Actually the project has grown and it was renamed to "microwindows" which > has become a much bigger project: ( iwas unable to compile it because of the > outdated dependency against freetype (v1) ) > > ftp://microwindows.censoft.com/pub/microwindows/microwindows-full-0.91.tar.gz > (10MB) > > this tarball contains nanox (but depends on freetype and such) and now is > 16KLOC > > Official website: > http://www.microwindows.org/ Thanks and kind regards, Anselm
Re: [dwm] nanox
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Jacob Todd wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote: >> > > Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just > clean > up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems > li > ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for > everyone. Oh dear... when will people learn that you can't polish a turd? Peace uriel
Re: [dwm] nanox
On Tue May 19, 2009 at 08:39:56PM -0400, Jacob Todd wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote: > > > > Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just > clean > up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems > li > ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for > everyone. besides firefox everything i use is curses/term based. with -nolisten and -notcp and hosts.deny and Xforwarding disabled in sshd.conf eveyrwhere (typical stock configs) never use network features either..
Re: [dwm] nanox
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote: > Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just clean up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems li ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for everyone.
