Talk:X.Org Server

Needs Improved Definition
After reading this article while trying to figure out what exactly the Xorg server does, I have come back even more confused. Would someone who knows this write up a definition that is intelligible to someone who doesn't understand Linux very well? -U235master explosivity is a virtue (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we tried to explain every term inline in each article we'd end up with articles hundreds of pages in length and still lacking the quality. Because of that the possibly complex terms are linked to their main articles instead. Here the main keyword is X server, you should read that article first.1exec1 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The opposite is needed. The original point still stands.
 * The problem is not the lack of 10 pages of explanation. The issue is that it is too long and complicated and raises too many questions instead of presenting the big-picture relationship. Before anything, a clear foundational understanding should be established in order to be able to gain an understand of what each of these terms mean in practice.
 * The problem is that there is no good representation of how X, X Server, X11, X.Org, X.Org Server, X.Org Foundation etc. relates to each other. It's a mess, which in turn makes people mix the terms. You see this all over in discussions.
 * What is the most confusing for people is to know whether they should say X11, X server, X.Org or X.Org Server. Which one is actually used today, how do they relate? What is even referred to when people use one of these terms?
 * Why not try to represent this in a visual illustration? With roles and purposes. Every article of the individual components should ideally have a big picture foundational representation.
 * These articles create the foundation people use to discuss and talk about these things. 109.247.176.218 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Update
Hello, According to distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian), Debian has switched to XOrg since Etch (Testing).

User-friendly
Should this article have a more user-friendly title? --217.159.81.198 22:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For a start, it should be "X.Org" not "XOrg". Something along the lines of "X.Org Foundation X11" or something?  Perhaps WP:RM might be worth looking into.

Indeed, it is rather unclear as to what X.org actually is. It's very confusing for people not into linux and computer slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.20.230 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
The title of this article is big, cumbersome, and difficult to locate. The title should contain "X.org" or "X.Org", and not "XOrg" or "Xorg". However, finding an appropriate new title is not easy. X.org is too ambiguous. Perhaps X.org X11 or thereabouts? Chris 02:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Instead of moving this it should probably be merged with X.Org Foundation as I don't think it warrants a separate article. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a crappy title. I started the article under this name as this was the name on the X.Org site. Dunno if it has an official name other than this. If this is what the software is called, this is what the software is called ... unless they've picked a less cumbersome proper name.


 * The article should not be merged with X.Org Foundation - that article is about the nonprofit corporation, this article is about some software produced under its auspices - David Gerard 09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the reference to The Cathedral and the Bazaar really that necessary here? It seems gratuitous to me. --Andyluciano 18 Aug 2005, 14:41 (UTC)


 * The XFree86/Xorg split is pretty much a classic CatB example - David Gerard 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the name?
On the article two different names are used, X.Org and XOrg. Wich one is the good one? --81.39.163.85 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Common codebase?
I've removed this sentence from the history section:

When the fork was created changes were folded in from X11R6.6 creating a common codebase.

Common between who and who? Without more explanation, this sentence is just confusing. There are a few other confusing bits in this article. Can someone who knows the details do a quick sanity check on the text? --Gronky 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just generally stub-quality just now. I've tagged it as such. We need lots of sources, though fortunately these should be easy enough to come by. In particular, the "other" reason for the fork (that X was a cathedral and that getting anything done in it was torture) has been very well documented. Chris Cunningham 07:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of this article
The official website for X.Org says it "provides an open source implementation of the X Window System" and the "X" program reports a version consistent with the version of the server installed such as 1.2, 1.3 (not 7.x) like so: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.179.31 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) $ X -version

X Window System Version 1.3.0 Release Date: 19 April 2007 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 1.3

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to rename this article to just "X.org", since it is (its current version >> 7.3) a complete windowing system including (among others) a server and many libraries and utilities, and not just a server. That would also be consistent with the XFree86 article (another implementation of the X Window System, like Xorg. The current name is misleading. 66.130.179.31 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Versions mixup ?
The first paragraph of the article says "The current stable release is 1.6.2, which is part of X11R7.5,", while the data block on the right side says "Stable release: 1.6.3". And the latest version on x.org primary download site is X11R7.4 / 1.5.1 (http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/X11R7.4/src/xserver/xorg-server-1.5.1.tar.bz2). Can someone clear this up, please ? --Xerces8 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two articles mixed
There is two concepts mixed in this article. One is X.Org's X Window System software bundle, witch version is R7.7 nowadays. The bundle includes the X.Org's X server, that has a individual version number (1.14.3 to this day). The X server is part (an essential one) of the entire X Window System, but there is more software components in it, with its own version numbers. That's the root of the confusion with the name of the article or the version number. (See for more details) --JavierCantero (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, this article refers to the "display server" doing the IPC, or what is left of it, see File:Schema of the layers of the graphical user interface.svg. The corresponding debian package is called "xserver-xorg-core": https://packages.debian.org/jessie/xserver-xorg-core
 * It is indeed hard to find and to disinguish from packages like https://packages.debian.org/jessie/xorg or https://packages.debian.org/jessie/xserver-xorg
 * This article should mention, that the xserver/x display server (versioned 1.16 at the time of writing) is part of a package called "X Window System" from X.Org (versioned R7.7 at the time of writing) :-). User:ScotXW t@lk 13:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"frequently updated" parameter in the Infobox software?
Usually a new X.Org is released every 6 months. It's hard to see the need of the "frequently updated" parameter in the infobox software, and it's confusing to those of us that watch the page. Should it be disabled and use the more common method of manually updating the version field? --JavierCantero (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Yeah, I'd ditch the use of Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server –  based on its history, it was updated seven times in about two years.  That isn't frequent.  &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Likewise with the preview release. Which seems to disappear when there is none set with the current system. With the intended 6 months between releases, and only a couple release candidates, no reason this can't be handled inline. PaleAqua (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

With the new table of releases I've added, most of the references and dates in Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server's history now are preserved and accesible --JavierCantero (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good job! &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice! I wonder if the roll-up release numbers should be also included. 7.0 ->1.0.1, 7.1 -> 1.1.0, 7.2 -> 1.2.0, 7.3 -> 1.4, 7.4 -> 1.5.1, 7.5 => 1.7.1, 7.6 => 1.9.3, 7.7 => 1.12.2. PaleAqua (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is done. The only thing missing may be to request the deletion of Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server. What do you think? --JavierCantero (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks great! Sure thing, Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server should be 'ed. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

System bootup & configuration
Hi, I am currently trying to figure out the steps done when my Debian 8 system boots up. Maybe this article should mention "system startup" in a section. I remember, that the configuration of an xserver used to be quite a PITA. Now much is handled by gnome-settings/xdg-stuff. GNOME Display Manager, its greeter, has a graphical surface, but is not based on xserver. It starts the xserver. User:ScotXW t@lk 13:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled via google over: xorg.conf. Probably that article should be merged into this one. User:ScotXW t@lk 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Developer community
It would be nice to have a better explanation of the community behind the code, but sadly there seems to be limited sources? Please provide any if you see them. When I was perusing New Developer Guide for X.org I got the sense that Alan Coopersmith was quite active, and he's the only one mentioned here. II | (t - c) 04:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Releases / Oder version, still supported
Does anyone have information about the versions still supported? I just updated this section with the current 1.19 release and couldn't find anything... ChronowerX (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
I understand if criticism section is removed from "article" but certainly DO NOT REMOVE from talk. X.org does not deserve to hide the voices they "kept shut up" during their wholistic control of changes to X that all 'nixes were using (at the time, XFree86 which distros like Debian caused to become non-compatible with their "new OS").

X11R7 should be called X12 R667, it is NOT X11 compatible, the mere name is "cover up". (Sun Micro and unix in general used major versions to indicated most all software would remain %100 compilable and working, minor versions to indicate new features that did not bother old applications).

''The new "head honchos" are doing more to bury X than support it and have written their own new rule that they are not responsible for developing X (while still using her name): recent years X.org charter reads: Research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack. This includes, but is not limited to, the following projects: DRM, Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System ... (note: note how Wayland is their mission and is non-USA controlled and licensed while they use the X name) ''

Darwin OS/X no longer supports X and took X out of their name (Apple iMac). Others followed suit. Though mostly a USA product and cost, only non-American parties are "controlling" and developing this X, and targeted for devices that are not made or controlled in the USA (ie, android use).

X.org began with forced use of XCB which had been an optional module (it forces different default for packet order for XTrans, the packet relay function - for no apparent reason) (note an option to packet order could have been added non-destructively). Later all "favorite" X apps (ie, Xmag) were hacked to require use of XCB though they had no special XTrans requests in orig. code (default use), making even triviall apps impossible to backport. Another change was fonts, the new system is 'better" however different and incompatible is not better if old applications are tricked by subtle changes (such as order fonts are listed in, or double listings), and no longer work. Compilation also changed in ways that required certain dependancies and prevented xview (accelerated multimedia video for pci video cards) from compiling (for the masses that is: with great effort it could be re-enabled, it had simply been intently disabled i proved).

The result was destruction of compatibility with any purchased software that used X11 protocol. The differences were not obvious to many at first (that the applications were all broken - many seemed to still work, but after use one would find they were functionally very broken and at times crashing where they had been rock hard stable). There were promises given that there would be "fixes", these I think were just a "cover", not genuine, just words X.org used to keep a captive audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda about anything, this is not a site for opinion pieces neither a forum —and that includes the Talk pages—. Any attempt would be deleted per Talk page guidelines, or we risk for it to become a opinion battlefield. Read WP:TALK "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal" and WP:TALK "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". --JavierCantero (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Community
I found in xorg-server-1.9.3 that it was IMPOSSIBLE to compile. This means (ie google android, debian, X developers) using xorg server were different source than the source they were releasing (else how would they test it?). xorg-server-1.9.3/hw/xfree86/loader/sdksyms.sh had been badly hacked and was disfunctional - preventing compilation. It had been a simple hand picked list of function names - but in 1.9.3 had become a surely broken and sure to break (in future) script.

I fixed it sdksyms.sh and posted a BUG on freedesktop bugzilla, but admins banned the post. Ii reposted it, non-sequitur comments were left by (someone?) and was "marked as solved", and it was then simply "ignored".

I found in xorg-server-1.9.3 that xview had intently been disabled for no reason (supports fluid panning and multimedia on good pci video cards, noting x.org killed off pci video card support - forced upgrade). It was disabled in several places, undoing the hacks enabled it without any impact to the rest of xorg-server. I also found (someone) had been using the same name to confuse people looking for accelerated X support to thinking it never existed (product name confusion).

I think the key here is that as a community things are clear: it is not like the xfree86 community in any way: it is controlled tightly and rudely by people with agendas who are doing "cover ups" (ie, maintaining separate sources that compile but for GPL showing sources that don't compile, switching focus to Wayland to get rid of X licensing, it's all about (asian pad) imports and de-licensing and control over consumers of what they are the admins of, etc), these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda about anything, this is not a site for opinion pieces neither a forum —and that includes the Talk pages—. Any attempt would be deleted per Talk page guidelines, or we risk for it to become a opinion battlefield. Read WP:TALK "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal" and WP:TALK "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". --JavierCantero (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The article talks about X11 without explaining what it is
This article makes multiple references to the word "X11" yet it is not explained anywhere in the article what "X11" is. As if the user should already know what it is. This is a big mistake. I would corect this If I knew, unfortunately I don't. ~ posted by Genoskill (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Added brief explanation near beginning of article that it refers to version X11 of the X Window Protocol. PaleAqua  (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you are a gentleman and a scholar. --- Genoskill  (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Not quite a gentleman btw :) PaleAqua  (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Acceleration architectures Merge-ins
I have completed the minimum to satisfy the result of the AfD. That also suggested additional merged and I may perform those WP:BOLDly over the next couple of days (if no one else does first). (Those merges suggested loosely at AfD). When merges are complete and possibly following peer review by Merge voters at AfD the Under construction will be removed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I hesitated when I went to merge in the next accelerator ... my feeling is they would be better moved to their own article. So I have paused .... I dont currently have a specific proposal and I would need carefully to think before making a proposal.  Thankyou.   Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies as I left under construction under this and went away.  I think what happened is I probably felt the acceleration architectures should proably be best merged to their own page but I don't have the energy or enthusiiasm for toing it.  My apolgies for leaving under construction up so long.  thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)