User login

Navigation

Contribute

Interested in contributing to FootNotes? Click here to submit news stories to us or visit this site for more information about available opportunities.

Art.GNOME.org

Error: It's not possible to reach RSS file...

GNOME Support

Friends of GNOME

Now's a good time to say thanks for the best desktop environment on the planet by becoming a Friend of GNOME or by upping your current Friends level. Contribute by joining the Friends of GNOME program. All contributions are tax-deductible in the U.S. Thanks to our generous Friends

Links of Interest

Syndicate

Xynth. A New Embedded Windowing System

Submitted by Anonymous George on Tue, 2005-12-13 08:43. GTK

New embedded and portable windowing system, client/server interface between display hardware (mouse, keyboard, video displays) and the desktop environment that works on many hardware, including embedded devices (handhelds, set-top boxes, etc.) has been released by Xynth.
They say "The name Xynth comes from the coordinate system, which is the heart of the Xynth Windowing System design. Xynth is a LGPL licensed free software project. It aims to provide a lightweight GUI supported windowing system for Linux-based and/or real-time embedded systems." The project's range is embedded systems to desktops. It might be a good choice for embedded systems.

An embedded X necessary for GTK by Anonymous George

It's your own free time to

Submitted by TopDown on Thu, 2005-12-15 04:17.

It's your own free time to waste, but why do people insist on reinventing X? Yes, X blows... in many ways... but it's here and we are stuck with it. It's not going away. Since the codebase of XFree was wrested away and became x.org, things have improved markedly.

But anyway, it's your free time to burn. So what does this system offer that x.org doesn't, or more importantly *couldn't* with a bit of work?

why do people insist on reinventing X?

Submitted by georg_H on Fri, 2005-12-16 16:44.

http://www.freedesktop.org/~jonsmirl/graphics.html

Interesting read... but it

Submitted by TopDown on Fri, 2005-12-16 17:30.

Interesting read... but it just backs up what I said:

"Conclusion

My experience with the failure of Xegl has taught me that building a graphics subsystem is a large and complicated job, far too large for one or two people to tackle. As a whole, the X.org community barely has enough resources to build a single server. Splitting these resources over many paths only results in piles of half finished projects. I know developers prefer working on whatever interests them, but given the resources available to X.org, this approach will not yield a new server or even a fully-competitive desktop based on the old server in the near term. Maybe it is time for X.org to work out a roadmap for all to follow."

Er by Anonymous George

Running well on low-spec

Submitted by TopDown on Thu, 2005-12-15 05:35.

Running well on low-spec machines?

X was designed to run on extremely low-spec machines -- lower in power than many embedded systems available today. XFree86 was a poorly designed/written bloat monster... but that doesn't mean that X generally is.

By your argument, Linus should never have bothered 'reinventing' Minix. Sometimes we need to make a fresh start, you know...

Fallacious example. Linux's great contribution wasn't to redesign anything. It was to provide a Free kernel. Linux wasn't innovative. What does this project do that X doesn't/couldn't?

I agree that there is a by Anonymous George

I agree that there is a

Submitted by TopDown on Thu, 2005-12-15 10:47.

I agree that there is a point for this project. Running X on a pda or a smartphone is stupid. X does not have the leanest design and sometimes you do need lean.

None of this is true... it's just a restatement of the original claim. For example... you could have pointed out *why* you think Xynth is leaner than X, but you didn't.

Oh and if you really have to compare Xynth to anything this would be Qutopia and NOT xorg/xfree86

From what I've read about it, Xynth would be compared to xorg + standardised widget toolkit. Admittedly, I'm no expert on it, but from the documents on its website it looks little different to X. Which brings me back to my original question: what does it offer that X does not, or could not offer with some work. note: just saying "it's leaner" doesn't work. X is extremely lean when you don't bloat it with crappy utils, ancient toolkits and dire primitive fonts.

gnome?

Submitted by Anonymous George on Wed, 2005-12-14 11:39.

interesting project, but what has it to do with gnome?

Re: gnome? by Anonymous George

You can't because gnome by Anonymous George

by Anonymous George