Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: KDrive, Xnest, Xvfb Called For Removal From X.Org

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,223

    Default KDrive, Xnest, Xvfb Called For Removal From X.Org

    Phoronix: KDrive, Xnest, Xvfb Called For Removal From X.Org

    X.Org developers are currently discussing the possibility to remove the KDrive, Xnest, and Xvfb technologies from the X.Org Server, citing that their functionality has been superseded by better alternatives and this could lead to trimming the xorg-server by over 30,000 lines of code...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA3NzY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,425

    Default

    There has to be a better reason than "it removes 30,000 lines of code".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,968

    Default

    Well, Xfbdev hasn't been usable in several releases (they broke both keyboard and mouse in 1.3, IIRC). While I personally use many of the would-be-kicked and already-kicked servers, it's quite understandable when the people who use them (mainly embedded folks, with little to none X dev experience) aren't the people who maintain X.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    517

    Default

    From my experience using Xephyr and Xnest, most of them have little things broken everywhere.
    If they are not maintained and are untested, it's better to remove them than to leave users frustrated with crashes and other problems.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    From my experience using Xephyr and Xnest, most of them have little things broken everywhere.
    If they are not maintained and are untested, it's better to remove them than to leave users frustrated with crashes and other problems.
    So it's better that users have no software than buggy software?

    I've used Xnest, Xvfb and Xephyr for various things in the past, and would hate to see them go.

    At the least, I really think they should wait 'till all the functionality of these servers which aren't currently available in the DDX drivers are implemented first before removing the servers, it'd provide motivation for whoever wants the servers removed to actually get the work done, whereas if the servers are removed first then we will likely never see some of the functionality re-implemented, and will effectively be removing functionality for no good reason.

    And before someone mentions "removing 30,000 lines of code" as a good enough reason, I wonder how much of that code actually affects the Xorg server itself?
    Pretty sure they're all separate code trees within the source tarballs...

    Anyways, from reading through the mailing list messages looks like it's gonna happen regardless of what I or other end users think.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,425

    Default

    So wait, what's the better solution that supersedes Xephyr?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadako View Post
    And before someone mentions "removing 30,000 lines of code" as a good enough reason, I wonder how much of that code actually affects the Xorg server itself?
    Well, it does increase the size of source tarballs/git pulls, and unless there's a configure option to disable the stuff, it increases build time. That's good enough for me..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadako View Post
    So it's better that users have no software than buggy software?

    I've used Xnest, Xvfb and Xephyr for various things in the past, and would hate to see them go.

    At the least, I really think they should wait 'till all the functionality of these servers which aren't currently available in the DDX drivers are implemented first before removing the servers, it'd provide motivation for whoever wants the servers removed to actually get the work done, whereas if the servers are removed first then we will likely never see some of the functionality re-implemented, and will effectively be removing functionality for no good reason.
    Does anyone here ever bother reading what they're commenting on beforehand, or is that unnecessary hassle? Xfbdev already has xf86-video-fbdev (which has existed since the XFree86 days and isn't going anywhere), and Xnest and Xephyr are being replaced by an xf86-video-nested, and won't be removed until -nested is fully ready, so there would be no loss of functionality. All of this was covered in the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadako View Post
    And before someone mentions "removing 30,000 lines of code" as a good enough reason, I wonder how much of that code actually affects the Xorg server itself?
    Pretty sure they're all separate code trees within the source tarballs...
    All of it affects the server. Want to change how initialisation happens? Make sure you change KDrive too. Input? Yep, a lot of work in KDrive. Same with rendering, and in fact everything. If we want to make changes, we need to change KDrive and Xnest to make sure they haven't been broken. This takes time and effort we feel would be better expended elsewhere.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    There has to be a better reason than "it removes 30,000 lines of code".
    There is: this seems to be unused code/duplicated functionality.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    There has to be a better reason than "it removes 30,000 lines of code".
    If those 30,000 lines aren't doing anything useful, then no, they don't need a better reason.

Posting Permissions

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