Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 93

Thread: Why More Companies Don't Contribute To X.Org

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    While i agree this was in poor taste, I don't see how you could call this "tormenting." It's not like they strapped them down and started water boarding or anything. Taunting, maybe.
    Yeah, but that's only because they ran out of booze before they got that far.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    I believe tha X is misunderstood too, and i do not believe Wayland is what will make Linux better for the desktop. It is too bad that most people, even on these forums, do not understand Linux/GNU at all. There are many Ubuntu kids/know-it-alls spreading FUD on the internets...

    What we really need *for the desktop*, is better opensource drivers plus better compositing managers. We should be using more and more of the gpu for rendering work. Gpus are everywhere these days, it is not possible to buy a current system, even a netbook, without at least OpenGL 1.4+ support.

    In 2 years, all Intel and AMD desktop/laptop/netbook cpus will include an on-die gpu(actually this is already happening, it is just that Bulldozer will need a second revision to become a fusion product, hence the 2 year period). This will be at least OpenGL 2.1+, with enough speed and ram to play decently modern games.

    So, what will provide us with speed, power savings, eye candy, is to have all rendering happening on the gpu. We will arrive at that point, and having X or Wayland will be largely irrelevant.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    I'm surprised X hasn't taken off in the thin client market. With the cheapness of building powerful multicore machines for use as mainframes I would think it would be really cost effective for schools and businesses to leverage something like NX based upon XOrg instead of buying hundreds of expensive way overpowered workstations. Nothing else could in principle perform as well as X in that area.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smorg View Post
    I'm surprised X hasn't taken off in the thin client market. With the cheapness of building powerful multicore machines for use as mainframes I would think it would be really cost effective for schools and businesses to leverage something like NX based upon XOrg instead of buying hundreds of expensive way overpowered workstations. Nothing else could in principle perform as well as X in that area.
    It has to do with incompetence of their IT departments. These days it is easy to find cheap labour to just format and install Windows+drivers/apps on several machines(or even better just use Symantec's ghost), than having competent IT specialists who are knowledgable in networks and Unix. Plus, sometimes the structure of a building doesn't help.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    While i agree this was in poor taste, I don't see how you could call this "tormenting." It's not like they strapped them down and started water boarding or anything. Taunting, maybe.
    There's a difference between bullying and 'just fscking with ya '. If you can't withstand something as playfull and small like that then I fear for you entering society. My friends a doing stuff like that all the time with eachother. It builds a better bond, too, "lol remember when we did that?". C'mon....

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Lightbulb Spreading the FUD...

    Quote Originally Posted by TemplarGR View Post
    I believe tha X is misunderstood too, and i do not believe Wayland is what will make Linux better for the desktop. It is too bad that most people, even on these forums, do not understand Linux/GNU at all. There are many Ubuntu kids/know-it-alls spreading FUD on the internets...

    What we really need *for the desktop*, is better opensource drivers plus better compositing managers. We should be using more and more of the gpu for rendering work. Gpus are everywhere these days, it is not possible to buy a current system, even a netbook, without at least OpenGL 1.4+ support.

    In 2 years, all Intel and AMD desktop/laptop/netbook cpus will include an on-die gpu(actually this is already happening, it is just that Bulldozer will need a second revision to become a fusion product, hence the 2 year period). This will be at least OpenGL 2.1+, with enough speed and ram to play decently modern games.

    So, what will provide us with speed, power savings, eye candy, is to have all rendering happening on the gpu. We will arrive at that point, and having X or Wayland will be largely irrelevant.

    Yes, I agree in having better OS drivers, but we also need better closed-source ones (mainly in the Catalyst camp). But the first thing you need to know is... how to program these drivers without infringing patents (in the ATI camp) or reverse-engineering them (Nouveau)?
    Problem nr1.

    About Wayland, is it REALLY an Ubuntu project?! I think the "hacker culture" destroys Linux reputation...

    The problem we're also talking is about problems in programming X. Wayland is already supported by Freedesktop.org, and, programming an old architecture turns into a hard resource-spending project (even more if we're talking about OS projects ). Starting "from the scratch" (Wayland) sometimes is a better alternative than doing significant changes to some projects (X and Xorg).

    Good OS drivers don't have OGL2.1 support (that's like having DX8 gaming support, but only 10 years later), they have all the OpenGL implementation WORKING (until OpenGL4, at least). And that will still take lots of time in the OS camp ...

    But I agree in some points with you... I also believe most notebooks in the near future will have on-die GPUs, but those will be low-perfomance ones...

    Cheers

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    344

    Thumbs down Tom Foolery

    Those two developers should have their access pulled. The integrity of the project is always at stake when you are as highly visible as the Xorg project.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Yes, I agree in having better OS drivers, but we also need better closed-source ones (mainly in the Catalyst camp). But the first thing you need to know is... how to program these drivers without infringing patents (in the ATI camp) or reverse-engineering them (Nouveau)?
    Problem nr1.
    No. The only way we are going to see better drivers is by keeping them open source and getting them fixed. Nvidia is the only company that produces decent closed source drivers for Linux and they only work as well as they do because they are, effectively, just windows drivers shoehorned into the kernel.

    Even Microsoft does not allow shit like that to happen. With Visa and Windows 7 they forced Nvidia and friends to move that out of the kernel. This is one of the reasons why Nvidia drivers sucked for Vista early on.

    About Wayland, is it REALLY an Ubuntu project?! I think the "hacker culture" destroys Linux reputation...
    Technically it's a Intel project. But that's probably only because they hired the main hacker responsible for it who started the project while working at Redhat.

    The problem we're also talking is about problems in programming X. Wayland is already supported by Freedesktop.org, and, programming an old architecture turns into a hard resource-spending project (even more if we're talking about OS projects ). Starting "from the scratch" (Wayland) sometimes is a better alternative than doing significant changes to some projects (X and Xorg).
    It's not a question of age.

    It's just that the X Server driver model sucks.

    We can keep using X11 applications, but we need to get rid of the X Server controlling the hardware. It's like having your web browser control the hardware. Except your web browser always runs as root.

    Think about that.

    Good OS drivers don't have OGL2.1 support (that's like having DX8 gaming support, but only 10 years later), they have all the OpenGL implementation WORKING (until OpenGL4, at least). And that will still take lots of time in the OS camp ...

    But I agree in some points with you... I also believe most notebooks in the near future will have on-die GPUs, but those will be low-perfomance ones...
    No. Almost everything will have on-die GPUs. Already the vast majority of systems use IGP. Intel outsells AMD/ATI and Nvidia, probably combined. And even then I am sure that until Intel kicked Nvidia in the balls in terms of the motherboard market IGPs were the largest consumers of Nvidia GPUs.

    There are HUGE performance and programming advantages to having the GPU on the same piece of silicon. The GPU runs faster, there is massively less latency between the CPU and the GPU, it's more energy efficient, and it's cheaper. All sorts of advantages. The GPGPU concept is a slam dunk in terms of "It's going to happen".

    Almost nobody runs discrete graphics card any more unless they have some specific need for higher performance graphics or need something like 3 monitors or whatever. And that is only because the GPGPU is it's infancy. Hell it's not even begun.

    The deal is that for most workloads your not going to see any advantage to having more then 4 or 8 general purpose cores.

    For improving performance beyond that your going to start to see processor cores that are specifically designed for different workloads.

    That's effectively what a GPU is nowadays. There is no such thing as 'hardware acceleration' anymore. "Acceleration" just means that your OpenGL software stack is processed on both the GPU and CPU processors.

    Think about this:

    Do you want to load proprietary drivers just to be able to use your processor?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Think about this:

    Do you want to load proprietary drivers just to be able to use your processor?
    Of course I wouldn't like to use proprietary blobs / drivers to make my hardware work properly... It would be against the principles of freedom if I couldn't use the computer I bought with the OS (operating system) I wanted to install.

    No. Almost everything will have on-die GPUs. Already the vast majority of systems use IGP. Intel outsells AMD/ATI and Nvidia, probably combined. And even then I am sure that until Intel kicked Nvidia in the balls in terms of the motherboard market IGPs were the largest consumers of Nvidia GPUs.
    Yes, I know the market share of intel IGP's is bigger than ATI + nVidia in conjuction... Although there will always be a market for discrete GPU's while we still need them for some heavy graphic demands or GPGPU, (for instance)... Integrated GPUs is the way to go in mobile market, but in the desktop one, I don't think so... (personal opinion, OC)

    It's just that the X Server driver model sucks.

    We can keep using X11 applications, but we need to get rid of the X Server controlling the hardware. It's like having your web browser control the hardware. Except your web browser always runs as root.
    Almost completelly agree. For instance, with current Xorg implementation, if we have technologies such as ION2, we can't switch between the discrete card and the integrated one on-demand, because current X architecture doesn't allow it...

    Cheers

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Yes, I know the market share of intel IGP's is bigger than ATI + nVidia in conjuction... Although there will always be a market for discrete GPU's while we still need them for some heavy graphic demands or GPGPU, (for instance)... Integrated GPUs is the way to go in mobile market, but in the desktop one, I don't think so... (personal opinion, OC)
    No, the truth is that on die gpus will be enough for 90% of desktop users(this will become 100% at some point in the future). You think otherwise because you are comparing it to IGPs on mainboards. This is not the same.

    On die gpus provide many advantages for speed. It is believed for example that Llano will be able to compete even with lower-mainstream discreet parts. And we are talking about the first generation of products of this kind.

    One other thing to consider is that there are some changes needed to optimize for on-die gpus. You need to optimize in order to harness the minimal latency an on-die gpu provides. But as the world moves to on-die gpus, these optimizations will come.

    After a while, the next step will be to scrap all discreet gpus altogether. Yup, that's right. The next step will be to use multiple APU's(cpu+gpu) instead of cpu+discreet gpu, when you need higher performance. You need to play Crysis 4? Add another APU, either on a second socket onboard and/or another pciexpress card with an apu onboard... This will be the future at some point... It makes sense.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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