Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Do you think Xorg should be rewritten from scratch?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Alps
    Posts
    42

    Default Do you think Xorg should be rewritten from scratch?

    Many things looks temporary in xorg: the memory manager, the 3d driver model, the 2d acceleration method, video playback...

    Years are passing and things seem to point nowhere, everybody continue to say "hey, new and better acceleration, wow!" but after 2 mins people start complainting about their new ITA/DMA 4950+1 or PerFidia GeoStrenght 9900&1/2 or OutTel 995GMX performing as a SVGA from late '80s.

    And manufacturers are complainting too: Nvidia replaces parts of X; Intel rewrites parts of X; ATI tries to work with the existing stuff and it took years to achieve acceptable performance.

    Then, why don't rewrite X completely, if the actual one have no good solutions for the modern desktop needs?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pickup View Post
    Many things looks temporary in xorg: the memory manager, the 3d driver model, the 2d acceleration method, video playback...

    Years are passing and things seem to point nowhere, everybody continue to say "hey, new and better acceleration, wow!" but after 2 mins people start complainting about their new ITA/DMA 4950+1 or PerFidia GeoStrenght 9900&1/2 or OutTel 995GMX performing as a SVGA from late '80s.

    And manufacturers are complainting too: Nvidia replaces parts of X; Intel rewrites parts of X; ATI tries to work with the existing stuff and it took years to achieve acceptable performance.

    Then, why don't rewrite X completely, if the actual one have no good solutions for the modern desktop needs?

    It's getting to the point where this wouldn't be a bad idea. X is old and tired, with the present solution we are seeing more and more where they paint themselves into a corner resulting the need for massive revamps all to often IMHO. Same could be said for sound in linux as well.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    They should. Sound as well. I just don't get why they keep "patching" an infrastructure that is obviously too old and has outlived its usefulness. Soon things will start looking like freaking Windows in the pre-Vista days.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Since X is modular, isn't that what they're basically doing now by rewriting it in parts? DRI2 (maybe)replacing DRI. UXA/EXA replacing AAX. Gallium3D replacing whatever was there before. GEM replacing TTM.

    I don't think it would be very easy to just rewrite the whole thing at once.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    437

    Default

    If this way can help them get rid of "hey! I've come up with a new acceleration mode, forget about what we did yesterday!" thingy, count me in.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Applications are using it so you can't just throw it away and rewrite something new. Actually, someone did write something new. DirectFB. No one wants to use it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    33

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I think that there is now potential for cooperation on deep refactoring of xorg. I say "refactoring" because keeping the API is likely a good idea. It is the one part of xorg that works quite well, provided that the whole *nix desktop thing depends heavily on it. But it is becoming increasingly evident that everything besides the API can be safely thrown away.

    In fact, the refactoring (including the "throwing away" part) has been happening for quite a while now, but in a very disorganised fashion: EXA, Xgl, AIGLX, nVidia proprietary solution, new components from Intel, and now this UXA thing, etc. Overlapping efforts are already a norm, and still the cumulative effect of these efforts is not satisfactory, because things simply don't work in many cases.

    The amount of dissatisfaction with the state of xorg makes starting a new project quite reasonable, in my opinion. What's needed is a well-formulated plan on what to do and a fair public discussion. That's the way to start an organised community effort.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pickup View Post
    Many things looks temporary in xorg: the memory manager, the 3d driver model, the 2d acceleration method, video playback...

    Years are passing and things seem to point nowhere, everybody continue to say "hey, new and better acceleration, wow!" but after 2 mins people start complainting about their new ITA/DMA 4950+1 or PerFidia GeoStrenght 9900&1/2 or OutTel 995GMX performing as a SVGA from late '80s.
    Rewriting Xorg wouldn't fix this; it would make it worse. There would still be all the problems associated with the general difficulty of writing driver code, plus an unproven architecture that would probably not end up being stable.
    Last edited by Ex-Cyber; 08-09-2008 at 10:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •