Re: Future of X ?

On Don, 2003-03-20 at 17:29, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> 1) Many Linux distros (and even more users) are running a less than current
> version of Xfree. If more developers are being looked at, tasking some of them
> to look after whatever version is the commonly installed version (when it is 
> not the latest and greatest) could be a boon, both for users and the
> perception of Xfree itself.

Good idea, I think we could use frequent bugfix releases, in particular
now that a bunch of more or less serious problems seem to have crept
into 4.3.0.


> - (To Reiterate Ruth Ivimey-Cook) Hot plugging of mouse in particular
> is something which everyone notices.

The Linux kernel will (in 2.6, and already does partly in 2.4) provide
this in a way that is backwards compatible and transparent to userland.


> - Simplyfying and improving font support. Making fonts look better makes
> Xfree as a project look better and makes users happy. New releases have
> improved the look of things, but we're not there yet. This is an issue of
> importance beyond Xfree. Making text more readable on a monitor is probably
> one of the most important things left in integrating computers further into
> human society. A really special target, when you think about it. 
> 
> - Fonts also desparately need to be simple to install. 
> One part of having a graphic desktop is to do things 
> with graphics, including graphics of words. Pro designers won't touch
> Xfree based systems until font support is easy, neither will Grandma
> who wants to make Christmas cards. Easy font support probably involves
> talking to commercial font houses to make it easier for them to produce
> (and sell ;( ) fonts for Xfree based systems.

I think Xft and fontconfig address these quite adequately already.


> - Translucency is a big complaint amongst users, so it probably can't
> be ignored, but don't let important things like memory handling and usage or
> general speed be forgotten.

Are these really important issues? As an example, a Mac OS X and casual
Linux user (as opposed to a Linux and casual Mac OS X user like me :)
recently asked me why X was 'slower' than Aqua, when in fact it's quite
clearly faster in general, and what bothered him was the difference in
smoothness.

-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast