Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Apple Looks To Take Over X Server 1.9 Release Management

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,646

    Default Apple Looks To Take Over X Server 1.9 Release Management

    Phoronix: Apple Looks To Take Over X Server 1.9 Release Management

    With yesterday's successful release of X.Org Server 1.9 on time by Intel's Keith Packard, most of the developers will now begin working towards X.Org Server 1.10. Like the past few X.Org Server releases, Keith Packard will go on to continue being the release manager for this new series. In the past there's been the input-expert Peter Hutterer of Red Hat to handle the stable release management duties for the point releases, but he will not be handling it for the 1.9.x series and it looks like Apple may be taking over...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODUzNA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    I don't know if he should be the maintainer if he needs someone else to do the other half of the job. Why not let the other person be the maintainer and Jeremy can do his thing for Apple?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,573

    Default

    As far as I know there *is* no other person right now, which is why Jeremy volunteered in the first place.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    What's the advantage to Quartz over X? Why do they even have it? Was it just too hard to do DRI on X at the time Mac OS X came out so they decided to write their own graphics server rather than using X11? Seems like an awful lot of trouble. Now none of the Mac stuff can be easily ported to X11, and they have to run and maintain two graphics servers.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    455

    Default

    It might interest some people to know that he used to be a Gentoo developer.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smorg View Post
    What's the advantage to Quartz over X? Why do they even have it? Was it just too hard to do DRI on X at the time Mac OS X came out so they decided to write their own graphics server rather than using X11? Seems like an awful lot of trouble. Now none of the Mac stuff can be easily ported to X11, and they have to run and maintain two graphics servers.
    Quartz was initially released long before X.org even came into existence. We were all still using XFree86 back then. Quartz debuted with Mac OS X 10.0 in early 2001, and Xorg didn't split from XFree86 until around 2004. Compiz, XGL/AIGLX, and so didn't start to stabilize until 2006.

    DRI didn't exist when OS X came out. Mesa's/Xorg's support for OpenGL 2 didn't exist. Support for OpenCL _still_ doesn't exist in Mesa/X. Gallium3D wasn't even a twinkle in Brian's eye back then. XFree86, Mesa, and the related libraries were more or less barely useful pieces of crap compared to the state of the art Quartz. The gap has narrowed a lot since then, but it's still not even closed.

    Quartz also uses a vastly different rendering model than X11 does. Quartz is more closely aligned with Cairo or Direct2D, being based entirely on a Porter-Duff PDF-like compositing model, while XRender was not even in existence and X11 was still nothing more than ugly lines, rectangle fills, and software rendering, with no support for compositing a desktop.

    Apple did the right thing in terms of technology and competitiveness. They outdid X11 (and Windows) by a huge margin. It wasn't until Windows Vista that Microsoft began to close the gap (and not until Windows 7 and the release of DirectX 10 + Direct2D that they actually caught up), and Xorg is still trying to solve a few pieces of the puzzle that Quartz had figured out years ago.

    Pretty much the only reason for people like us to even consider Xorg superior in any way is the fact that Xorg is Open Source and Quartz is most certainly not.

    Wayland + Cairo-over-Gallium3D would be closer to a Quartz competitor than Xorg ever will be, honestly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quartz is a proprietary technology which gives Apple the competitive advantage. MacOS X and Quartz are one of the reasons why people dish out huge amounts of money for Apple hardware (I know you can run it on a regular PC nowadays, but this is not supported, and something for experienced users, not typical Apple customers).

    Why on Earth would Apple want their apps to be easily portable to Linux/Unix? It's really bloody obvious why they're not using bog-standard X, but their own closed-source solution: They sell that for a living.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,333

    Default

    DRI didn't exist when OS X came out.
    That's false, DRI was released with XFree86 4.0, which was released on March 8 2000.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Apple got the predecessor to Quartz when they bought NeXT. NeXT's DisplayPostscript exists since the 1980s. The Postscript part was ported to the related PDF technology to avoid licensing fees to Adobe.

    When Apple acquired NeXT, Apple was almost bankrupt and Apple's Classic Mac OS technology wasn't going anywhere.
    NeXT's OS was stable and included technology that was already years ahead of anything else *– including display tech.
    Throwing that away just for the sake of using X11 would be madness from an economical standpoint.

    It wasn't until Apple recovered and the more important compatibility task (“Carbon” compatibility layer for Classic Mac apps) was completed that they started to support X11.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    That's false, DRI was released with XFree86 4.0, which was released on March 8 2000.
    OS X was deep into the development cycle by that time with 10.0.

Posting Permissions

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