Talk:X.Org Server

message: Should this article have a more user-friendly title? --217.159.81.198 22:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  User-friendly 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What's the name? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Common codebase? 

message: 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:
<nowiki>
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.179.31 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Versions mixup ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Good job! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Looks great!  Sure thing, Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server should be 'ed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "frequently updated" parameter in the Infobox software? 

message: 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:ScotXWt@lk 13:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled via google over: xorg.conf. Probably that article should be merged into this one. User:ScotXWt@lk 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  System bootup & configuration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Developer community 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Releases / Oder version, still supported 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, or we risk for it to become a opinion battlefield. Read WP:TALK#USE "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#OBJECTIVE "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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, or we risk for it to become a opinion battlefield. Read WP:TALK#USE "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#OBJECTIVE "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)
thread_title: Community

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks, you are a gentleman and a scholar. ---Genoskill (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome. Not quite a gentleman btw :) PaleAqua (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article talks about X11 without explaining what it is 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Acceleration architectures Merge-ins