Novell Makes Public Release of Xgl Code

hamfactorial writes "Novell has announced the public availability of the Xgl code, an openGL accelerated X server layer. Available binaries ought to be coming soon for distributions running the modular X.org 7.0 release (possibly 6.9, though unconfirmed). A temporary page for Xgl information is up at the openSUSE website. This is the same code that was running in the Novell Linux Desktop 10 preview videos as seen earlier. Further information is also available at Miguel De Icaza's blog."

Finally!

[rsilvergun]

Real Transparency! But who's providing the hardware accel? This is still kinda sticky, right now your choices boil down to nvidia's closed source driver (not that I have a problem with that), ATI's bug fest (sorry, but it's true), or a really old Radeon. Oh yeah, while I'm idly wondering, what are the odds of this making it into mainstream desktops ( stock gnome/kde )?

Re:OMG XINERAMA PLEASE!

[Organic_Info]

The project is fresh out development and your already whining for what it might not have.

And to think when the news first broke that this would be initially developed in house there was outrage, but you comment exemplifies why they started development away from the "community".

Question is are you going to do anything to help the project?

Re:Eye candy can make sense

[ardor]

I agree. Furthermore, the current state actually does not make much sense. Considering that, for example, nvidia-chips do not have a dedicated 2D core anymore, the driver has to emulate 2D for the legacy 2D APIs that have been used until now. Essentially, dedicated 2D development is dead; its nonsense to have a 2D core since the 3D one can do everything 2D-related much faster and with extras like blending or shaders.

So right now we have an artificial distinction between 2D and 3D. The vendors have to deal with composite stuff AND with opengl acceleration, sometimes simultaneously. Using OpenGL as the base for everything is much better, since opengl already has a client/server-architecture, driver development gets easier, X as a whole becomes leaner, responsiveness and look-n-feel of X improve, and the CPU does not have to deal with fake transparency stuff.

So its all about moving the 2D/3D-distinction away from the driver into the X server.

Come on guys, stop complaining!

[BerkeleyDude]

This is great news! Weren't we waiting for the Xgl?

Why is everyone complaining about Novell, graphics drivers, Debian, and lots of completely irrelevant topics?

Nothing can make Slashdotters happy...

Look is important

[William Baric]

I can't understand why there is so many posts saying that eye candy are not important. For people who can't judge the internal quality of a software, how it looks is what tell them if it's good or not. You can't impress a PHB with some C code, but you can sure impress him with a lot of eye candy. I need this very badly to be able to "sell" linux to my client as a desktop and I need it BEFORE Microsoft do it.

Target Vista

[cyberjessy]

The target surely seems to be Vista. If Linux did not do this it would have meant that Vista would have a free ride with fancy hardware accelerated 3D transparent glassy glossy grossy interfaces. For J6P, the OS is only as good as it looks.

Since Miguel is involved I sure hope we can target all this hardware accelerated goodness with Mono as well. Mono makes making Linux apps amazingly easy, atleast for those of us with years of Windows programming background. This step is absolutely essential for Mono while it tries for Windows API compatibility. The upcoming Windows APIs (called WinFX, which is .Net based) include something called Avalon, which benefits (and at times requires) hardware accelerated graphics. If X did not have hardware accelerated graphics, this would have been a block in the progress of Mono.

Well, for Mono lovers this is the reason to rejoice.

Re:Eye candy can make sense

[MikeFM]

As someone that's spent way to much time trying to get work done on OS X I absolutely disagree. OS X is fine for users trying to run two or three windows but for serious users that run ten or twenty programs at once it just is in the way.

I'm fine with eye candy if it does something useful but if it doesn't then it doesn't belong, as a default, on my desktop. This thing looks cool but I don't see it being useful in of itself. Maybe someone will use it to create something useful though. I see 3D as being a good tool for looking at complex relationships but just replacing workspaces with a 3D cube seems pointless.

Re:What kind of hardware is used?

[FireFury03]

I'd like to know what kind of hardware they used to create the demo's. From my experience the nvidia drivers aren't very stable.

In my experience, stability hasn't been a problem for nVidia drivers released over the past few years (it was a problem 4 or 5 years ago but they seem to have sorted it). There are still some niggling bugs (not usually stability related) which would've been fixed a long time ago if the drivers were open though... I think a public bugzilla would also help so we can see the progress of our bug reports.

Re:That's not progress

[Bazzalisk]

Just to point out that it can be quite beneficial to have a slight pause before submenus open - it prevents button-bounce from causing you to select the first item in the menu immediately instead of having a chance to choose one ... yes I have had that problem personaly when menu delays weren't setup correctly in a program and it was a real sumbitch to use the damned thing.

Moral of the story: best and most usable interface design is not necessarily obvious at first glance.

Re:Eye candy can make sense

[Lussarn]

OS X and windows has the same problem, cluttered Dekstops. As you say you need to hide the programs. When on UNIX I don't have overlapping windows, I use virtual desktops. It doesn't clutter and works really well. I manually position my programs the way I like to have them, that way I know where they are. On Win and OS X the windows can be all over the place where there is enough space at the moment. I don't see anything you just explained that changes that. No thanks. I don't want to search for my programs.

Re:Eye candy can make sense

[miyako]

There is one instance when I've found transparency to be very useful in OS X- and that is with the terminal. It is incredibly nice to be able to code in a terminal window and have documentation open beneath the terminal so that you can simply look through the code to see you're documentation.
The thing about transparency isn't that you want to have all your windows transparent, it's that you want to be able to have one window open full screen and still be able to quickly reference another window.

Proprietary software

[Arandir]

From the article: "...we're not going to cede 3D graphics acceleration to proprietary software."

But will we be required to use a proprietary video driver to get it? It would be nice if Novell were putting its resources behind open source drivers or pressuring the release of hardware specs. Proprietary firmware doesn't bother me at all, but the drivers (both kernel and user mode) for open source systems need to be open source themselves.

Re:Eye candy can make sense

[pthisis]

As an alternative, you can have focus-follows-mouse and put the docs on top of the terminal.

One of many reasons I hate click-to-focus, autoraise, and other things that force the window with focus to also be the on top.