Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ehsn19.cen.uiuc.edu!jroberts From: jroberts@ehsn19.cen.uiuc.edu (Jason V. Robertson) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Sometimes you need X server source (Was: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium) Date: 27 Mar 1996 20:09:35 GMT Organization: University of Illinois Lines: 91 Message-ID: <4jc79v$h11@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> References: <4ja28c$9da@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4jb67e$eil@solaris.cc.vt.edu> <4jc1cv$ja4@library.erc.clarkson.edu> Reply-To: jroberts@uiuc.edu (Jason Robertson) NNTP-Posting-Host: ehsn19.cen.uiuc.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:13659 comp.os.linux.development.system:19992 comp.os.linux.x:27594 comp.os.linux.hardware:34325 comp.os.linux.setup:47182 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:291 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2782 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2556 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:15997 In article <4jc1cv$ja4@library.erc.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski) writes: >erik@fenris.campus.vt.edu wrote: >: Jason V. Robertson (jroberts@ehsn19.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote: >: : >: : And a binary X server can have LBX as part of its standard distribution just >: : as well as a source distributed, if LBX ever gets straightened out. > >I also think LBX is a library (lbxproxy?) and a few programs have to be run >for LBX to really be active. Since Xinside gets their base code from XF86 >(who gets it from the X Consortium) my guess is that things like that >are either compatable already, or can easily be put back in the code once >LBX get stabilized. Yeah.. There are server extensions I think, too. But I still don't understand the original poster's point about LBX. It's not even in the newer XFree86 distributions (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so how can he expect to be able to get it in a commercial product? Why would whoever makes AccelX, MetroX is it?, put LBX into their product when it's not ANY sort of standard at all? They might as well come up with their own low bandwidth solution and pop it in. What use would that be? >: The point is not what a binary X server can have.. it's what it doesn't >: have RIGHT NOW. It doesn't have it because it's not production quality. My question is why _would_ they include it? >: Running Linux or BSD or anything gives me the source code to most things, >: including everything I run at the moment. I like to be able to see >: how people did things in the Xserver ( particularly as I still havehopes >: of helping out when my time increases ). I like to be able to modify >: it for either low memory conditions ( cut out EVERYTHING I don't like ) or >: for when I need PEX/PHIGS support, or when I want to hack it for some >: nifty feature. I can't do that with Xinside. Then don't buy Xinside. It's as simple as that. If you want free software, then you're stuck with it. It has its limitations, as does commercial software. But sometimes you just happen to have to pay for certain features. >It's the eternal balance. Do you want the source code and something very >cheap? Get XF86. Want something that's rather fast and works with most >cards? Get AccelX. Exactly. I like free software as much as the next guy, but I won't complain about someone who charges for it. >: Lets say I wanted to disable TCP connects to the X server because I am using >: a standalone PC with a network connection. Can I do that with Xinside? >: ( and no, I don't want to buy a router to drop these packets.. I'm a student, >: not a business ). With XFree86, all I need is the drive space, and a recompile >: later, I have a Xserver that does what I want it to. Security patches.. >: I'm there. I don't have to wait for the people at Xinside to put up a >: new version. You're discussing the merits of commercial binaries versus source. I don't see the point. Obviously people would rather have source and free code. But what's your point? >: Not that Xinside is bad.. if money can be made off software, I don't blame >: people for doing so. But for students with limitted budgets and hobbyists >: with even more limitted budgets, and everyone wanting to tweak their systems, >: Xinside doesn't meet their needs. Xinside is good for those who want a >: system that comes up out of the box.. Windows 95, OS/2, etc, all meet these >: same needs. Then don't buy Xinside. It's very simple. If you don't want to pay for a superior product then don't. Use the free version, it's almost as good in every way - it just doesn't support some cards that the commercial version does because of NDA's. >I have AccelX and am quite happy with it for two reasons: >1) I can run my Mach-32 card in 64k colors. XF86 can't. >2) It is faster than XF86. XF86 gave me 64K colors with my Mach32. Did you have a wierd version of it or something? I use XF86 and it's a very good piece of software. The only reason I would ever consider buying AccelX is if I were to buy a card that XF86 doesn't support. >: And as the students/hobbyists of the world, we have the talents and the skills >: and the dedication to reverse engineer just about any software out there. > >The legality is a bit fuzzy :), but go for it. Not only that, but I seriously doubt things would work well. First, it would be extremely difficult. Second, the good people who write XF86 will probably NOT help, support, or condone it. It probably won't be merged with the real distribution. I say this based on some replies I've seen from members of the groups. I could be wrong. It will piss a lot of people off, too.