View Single Post
Old 26th May 2009
TerryP's Avatar
TerryP TerryP is offline
Arp Constable
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,547
Default

@ Oliver read the rest of the paragraph ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
In my opinion, if you're not working on X.Org, then shut up -- whining or bitching about a program rarely makes it better. Unlike *some* things that may irk you, X.Org for the most part has source code available. Don't like it, then hack on it, or pay someone to hack on it for you, and if that is still not good enough, shove off to another program or put up with it.
and I do commend your efforts. The intended message was that people whining doesn't do as much as helping it become what they want; or moving onto something that will, or can become what they want. Code obviously makes things work, but it is only a small part of the work, unless you just want to write yet another implementation of cat(2)

I doubt X.Org is like PC-BSD*, where best changes happen because of a lot of angry shouting at developers ;-)

*I consider PC-BSD the Linux Distro of BSDs, and do not personally consider PC-BSD to be a real BSD system, beyond technically being built on top of one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vermaden View Post
I may understand that kind of attitude when it comes to Operating System choice, there are multiple choices here, Windows, Mac OS, Linux, many BSD, OpenSolaris, many less populat systems like Syllable or ReactOS, but when it comes to x11 what you have as an alternative? XFree86 you say, but how many ports will fail and/or require Xorg as a dependency, generally much more hassle/work to do the same thing.
X.Org's server is supposed to be a reference implementation of X11 is it not? There's nothing to stop people from creating an alternative implementation is there? Heck, X.Org was basically forked from XFree86: and historically given that hub bub: it can't be a huge surprise if X.Org development becomes closer and closer to the Linux model of doing business.... let along Linux definition of portable.

Solaris even has Xsun, which is likely handy on SPARC boxes for a good reason ;-)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
No system calls are standardized, they different between all operating systems.. that's why a common set of high level libraries are provided that comply with standards.

... mkdir(2) is now standardized.. how it works behind the scenes is implementation specific, it could call upon the cosmic forces to align the stars in a way that represents a new hierarchal level. (..if you were crazy enough to mess around with such dangerous yet imaginary forces.)
Yes mkdir and many essential UNIX system calls are standardized as a C based API of sorts. mkdir will be basically the same on any UNIX, whether or not it compiles with POSIX/SUS. Doing so was an essential part of creating those standards.

Does SUS allow me to write to a register on my graphics card, and have my code compile and run properly (in so far as that scope) on any SUS compliant system? I've never read POSIX, and have never had time to read _every single page_ of SUS, but I somehow doubt it provides enough to do something like, oh say write an X11R6 implementation that'll run on X86, SPARC, Alpha, and whatever else, so long as a SUS compliant C-based API is there ;-)


Personally, I would love it if there was a much larger Universal Operating System Standard Interface (UOSSI) or something.... especially if it just took POSIX/SUS, C99/C++2003, X11, and related standards as token elements: then fixed the problems/holes where needed for portability within defined scope of how portable they want it to be, moved things into the future bit by bit, and fixed the missing links in the current body of standards by adapting a wider scope of features: audio / video / networking / useful kernel interfaces, etc. Until the point where the non portable of today, becomes the as good as a POSIX of tomorrow.


Fat chance anything like that will happen in our life times. If it does, it would probably be dominated by Linux, Microsoft, Corporate Interests, or a new comer once the bottom falls out of the others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
In the end it depends on your definition of portable, can you write a game that works on every OS in existence? probably not.. it wouldn't be incredibly useful on the embedded trimmed down OS on a craft orbiting Pluto, so consider limiting your target to a specific type of operating system.. many exist that have similar environments and share a common set of operations.
And there in lies the point. X.Org / XFree86 have always had a focus on PC-based unix systems -- if they were to choose Linux over 'POSIX in general', it would be their right to do so. Just like it would be X.Orgs right to have more focus on x86 then SPARC systems!


Just like it would be my right, to have chosen DirectX over SDL as the scope of portability for my game: and enforce that at the source level. Having to port C++/SDL/etc would also be much better then saying you have to port my language or highly_machine_specific_gfx_thing instead.





I can think of a lot worse things then X.Org becoming more Linux oriented.
__________________
My Journal

Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.
Reply With Quote