DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > Miscellaneous > General software and network

General software and network General OS-independent software and network questions, X11, MTA, routing, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26th May 2009
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

You can read more about the XFree86 licencing issues here.
Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2009
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,894
Thanked 214 Times in 189 Posts
Default

From the XFree86 wiki:
Quote:
Versions of XFree86 up to and including some release candidates for 4.4.0 were under the MIT License, a permissive, non-copyleft free software license. XFree86 4.4 was released in February 2004 with a change to the license: the addition of a credit clause,[1] similar to that in the original BSD license,[2] but broader in scope.

Many projects relying on XFree86 found the new license unacceptable,[3] and the Free Software Foundation considered it incompatible with the GNU General Public License. The XFree86 Project contests this, maintaining that the license is compatible with the GPL.[4]

Some projects made releases (notably OpenBSD 3.5 and 3.6, and Debian 3.1 "Sarge") based on XFree86 version 4.4 RC2, the last version under the old license. Most operating systems incorporating XFree86 (including later versions of OpenBSD and Debian) migrated to the X.Org Server.[5]
Later, Free Software Foundation has described the controversial XFree86 1.1 License as compatible with the new version 3 of the GPL, but incompatible with version 2.[6]


...The X.Org Server became the official reference implementation of X11. The first version, X11R6.7.0, was forked from XFree86 version 4.4 RC2 to avoid the XFree86 license changes, with X11R6.6 changes merged in. Version X11R6.8 added many new extensions, drivers and fixes. It is hosted by and works closely with freedesktop.org. Most of the open-source Unix-like operating systems have adopted the X.Org Server in place of XFree86, and most of the XFree86 developers moved to X.Org [10].
Oops. Missed BSDfan's post, above. Page transition in vbb.
Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2009
TerryP's Avatar
TerryP TerryP is offline
Arp Constable
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,547
Thanked 112 Times in 104 Posts
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
Old 26th May 2009
Oko's Avatar
Oko Oko is offline
Fsck Surgeon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kosovo, Serbia
Posts: 856
Thanked 36 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
And there in lies the point. X.Org / XFree86 have always had a focus on PC-based unix systems
With all due respect that is just grossly inaccurate statement. It could not be further from the truth.

X has been created at MIT as a part of Athena project when PCs barely existed for the type of machines popularly known as Unix workstations. What we call today PC is a grandchild of 1983 IBM attempt to get into micro computer market which was until then dominated by start ups and mish mash hardware. PCs (micro computers) have not been taken seriously by X, Unix, VMS and if you like computer community at large at least until late nineties and the demise of large proprietary Unix vendors as DEC, SGI, and if you like SUN. Please !!! we have not had any PC machines at the universities in U.S. probably until 2000. It was all SUN, SGI and aging DEC hardware.

PCs have never been created as multi-user machines. Why would PCs need network ready X server? They didn't have any graphical interface to speak of until mid 90s and Windows 1995. X traditionally required Unix or VMS as underlining OS. I am not aware that X was ever ported to DOS but I might be wrong about it.

Unix has been ported to PCs by Microsoft (Xenix) which ditch it in favor of much less hardware hungry DOS because
PCs could not run Unix shell let alone Unix+X.

BSDs have traditionally being hacked on HP risk stations and SUN hardware. Marriage of BSDs and if you like Unix
with PCs is marriage of convenience not love. Nothing could make me more happy than to see rise of another RISK
based hardware vendor targeting workstation market.

Whole idea of X being for PC is such Linuxism that it just makes me mad

Last edited by Oko; 26th May 2009 at 11:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

TerryP said XFree86 & Xorg primarily targeted x86 PC's, and he's right Oko... XFree86 only started in 1991, guess what the 86 in XFree86 is representing?

X Window does have origins well before both XFree86 and Xorg, and it was primarily used on high end Unix workstations in the late 80's.. various commercial vendors have had their own forks of X that developed independently of the free reference implementations.

In the early 90's there were a couple different commercial Unix-like operating systems for x86 (..even some for 16-bit 286 processors), users of said operating systems would dial into local BBS's.. if Internet was available they could access FTP servers to obtain binary releases of XFree86.

Same goes for the 80's, people using non-x86 Unix workstations would lurk around on Usenet or other sorts of mailing lists.. back then they likely had university access to the Internet and had to obtain the X source directly from MIT's FTP servers, compiling it manually.

Looking at the X10R3 tarball that's available at ftp.x.org, many of the files are dated 1985/1986.. 4.3BSD and Ultrix-32 appear to be the only supported operating systems at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11#Release_history

It looks like there was at one point a port of X for DOS, can't find much information about it though.

Last edited by BSDfan666; 27th May 2009 at 12:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
Oko's Avatar
Oko Oko is offline
Fsck Surgeon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kosovo, Serbia
Posts: 856
Thanked 36 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
TerryP said XFree86 & Xorg primarily targeted x86 PC's, and he's right Oko... XFree86 only started in 1991, guess what the 86 in XFree86 is representing?
I am not going to argue with you as I deeply respect your knowledge and experience. I personally have used X first time 1992 in Belgrade on Dec Micro VAX 3100 runing Digital Unix. Since, I moved to U.S. (1995) I have used X on XTerms (thin clients) made by NEC which were attached to SUN Ultra Enterprise server, I have used Indy, and some later SGI hardware and only once I had honor of playing with some DEC alphas. When I rose through the ranks I believe my first office computer was SUN blade 100. First, time I personally have used PC computer was 2002. It was running RedHat Linux. During all that time I have successfully managed never to use PCs, DOS, or Windows. In early nineties because I had Atari ST and Amiga. After moving to U.S. I was too poor for a long time to have my own personal computer so by the time I had little money (read I was too poor to buy a MAC) Windows environment and PC hardware were so foreign to me that
I didn't care for the software part at least. I wish, I could say the same for hardware.

Last edited by Oko; 27th May 2009 at 01:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Most people have never used a real workstation, OKO. I got my first Unix workstation in the late 1980s, a Sun 3/60, all 20MHz of 68020/68881 goodness. We had some discussions in the lab whether HP or Sun made the better box (we had an HP minicomputer that did our real-time data acquisition for the entire lab of 20 PhDs with their associated technicians), but the quality of each was outstanding. And it was quite a contrast to the garden-variety 8088-based PCs that most everyone else used. And it ran real Berkeley Unix, though I don't recall if it ran X or not. It had some sort of window manager that used graphics; I'd bet it was X.

The PCs caught on because they were cheap and fast in a straight line. Terrible kludges in many ways, but hey, they worked and were cheap. Did I mention they don't cost much?

It really irks me to hear people talking about their garden-variety computer as a workstation. Simply, they are not. These days there really is not an equivalent to the workstations of yore, though perhaps some of the 8-core server boards come close. Even those suffer from the limited architecture, BIOS, and Intel/AMD chips.

Yes, this is waaayyyy OT.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
Oko's Avatar
Oko Oko is offline
Fsck Surgeon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kosovo, Serbia
Posts: 856
Thanked 36 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJ View Post
Most people have never used a real workstation, OKO.
That is very unfortunate but true. And yes I have to apologize to Terry.
Terry you are technically right. XFree86 refers to i386 architecture as pointed by BSDfun666. I made a honest mistake probably due to the fact that much like DrJ I have not used XFree86 until 2002 or so
Probably, just like DrJ, I wish, I had never used XFree86 and PC.

Last edited by Oko; 27th May 2009 at 02:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko View Post
Probably, just like DrJ, I wish, I had never used XFree86 and PC.
I don't have quite as strong an opinion as you do in this area. Yes, I do miss the raw performance (in comparison with the mainstream), quality and reliability of both the hardware and software of those old workstations. I never found a single bug in SunOS. They undoubtedly were there, but I never ran into one. You really can't get anything like them these days -- Intel won this war.

xorg has been a mess for me too; XFree was comparatively OK, since it was very stable. And honestly, the hardware has become fast enough that all the rountine things can be done fine on commodity hardware. But my goodness do things break all the time!
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
roddierod's Avatar
roddierod roddierod is offline
Real Name: Rod Person
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 383
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Versions of XFree86 up to and including some release candidates for 4.4.0 were under the MIT License, a permissive, non-copyleft free software license. XFree86 4.4 was released in February 2004 with a change to the license: the addition of a credit clause,[1] similar to that in the original BSD license,[2] but broader in scope
I guess I don't see the "evil" in this, especially from a *BSD point of view. I read the Xfree86 license 1.1 and just really don't get it.
__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,894
Thanked 214 Times in 189 Posts
Default

As I understand it, the license changed the original BSD license "advertising clause" into a "credit clause", and required attribution be included in documentation shipped in a binary distribution. Many projects/products dropped XFree86, not only because of this special requirement, but also because X developers were jumping ship. Those who dropped XFree86 at 4.4 included Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian, RedHat, and OpenBSD. Here's Theo's announcement in misc@:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107696705911864&w=2

Be warned: there's 30 or so responses in follow-on discussion.

My understanding is the currently preferred ISC license does not have an advertising clause at all. Less restriction, rather than more restriction.

Last edited by jggimi; 27th May 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
roddierod's Avatar
roddierod roddierod is offline
Real Name: Rod Person
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 383
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Default

So it looks like #3 here is the bad guy

Quote:
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
Now, I'm not trying to be a wise a*s or flog a dead horse, but I don't understand what is less free or non free about giving someone credit for what they did? Ethically that seems to me the right thing to do. But, I understand law has nothing to do with Ethics.
__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,894
Thanked 214 Times in 189 Posts
Default

On the OpenBSD project, a 3rd party port may have almost any license, with all sorts of restrictions. Not a problem. But the licenses in the OS itself are limited, by policy, per www.openbsd.org/goals.html. X is shipped as part of the OS, so I can understand why a special license might be rejected. Theo determined it was not a Berkeley style license, and, as he mentioned in his announcement, the license made the software "less free." His decision was debated, but it was Theo's decision. His project, his rules.

As for the Linux products/projects, my understanding was the concern that this was special license was incompatible with GPL.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2009
phoenix's Avatar
phoenix phoenix is offline
Risen from the ashes
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 699
Thanked 90 Times in 81 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggimi View Post
As for the Linux products/projects, my understanding was the concern that this was special license was incompatible with GPL.
Correct. This is the same reason/issue that the original 4-clause BSD license was incompatible with the GPL -- it adds an extra requirement to the software, which the GPL forbids.
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2009
TerryP's Avatar
TerryP TerryP is offline
Arp Constable
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,547
Thanked 112 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I'm actually quite used to people not getting the distinction between X Windows System / X11 and things X.Org/XFree86; for me it is much the same as the difference unix-like and Solaris / AIX / etc.

Being quite young to a culture that is quite old (comparatively), a study of computing from the days when a PDP-1 was the new chick, all the way to the modern area. It was kind of necessary to reduce odds of putting my foot in my mouth.... but hey, I love history and being accurate when possible (and have tasted my foot to often).


@DrJ / even further OT: Some time ago I coded a test to profile several different but similar solutions to 1 problem. It worked fine on a small data set (bigger then real world), taking only a few moments to execute with nice results. So I increased it to a progressively heavy data set and set the machine crunching away, so I could review the results under different chokes before settling. When the laptop started to overheat ~15min later (high CPU use and lots of swaping etc), the arithmetic of what I had changed finally started catching up to my brain, and I stopped once estimated run time for the new tests exceeded 8 hours and kept rising because of the data to be processed -- and for the first time understood why real work stations are such exquisitely crafted beasts! Some scientific needs for processor time must be insanely heavy loads....
__________________
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
Old 28th May 2009
fbsduser fbsduser is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 107
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker View Post
XFree is still being maintained, but support for XFree was removed from the ports tree a few months ago -- I believe the version in ports was rather old anyway.
It would be interesting to see if it would work, all the fancy 3D features are not that interesting to many of the BSD people, who mainly prefer stability over performance ...

As for the Linux/Xorg integration ... It seems like a very hypothetical issue that may or may not happen ... I would rather worry about the issues at hand (i.e. Xorg becoming crappy&unstable) rather than the issues that may or may not occur...

And as for ``Linuxism'' in other applications: This is certainly true, but the difference is that a) There are often alternatives for the ``Linuxism apps'', and b) That Xorg is more than just any application, it is a critical part of a desktop system.
Actually Carpetsmoker. By "3D features" I just referring to the stuff that makes videogames run at high framerates (I know it's some sort of accerelation, or at least that is what gamers call it). I don't need compiz because I already have it under my M$ Linux partition.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2009
fbsduser fbsduser is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 107
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
TerryP said XFree86 & Xorg primarily targeted x86 PC's, and he's right Oko... XFree86 only started in 1991, guess what the 86 in XFree86 is representing?

X Window does have origins well before both XFree86 and Xorg, and it was primarily used on high end Unix workstations in the late 80's.. various commercial vendors have had their own forks of X that developed independently of the free reference implementations.

In the early 90's there were a couple different commercial Unix-like operating systems for x86 (..even some for 16-bit 286 processors), users of said operating systems would dial into local BBS's.. if Internet was available they could access FTP servers to obtain binary releases of XFree86.

Same goes for the 80's, people using non-x86 Unix workstations would lurk around on Usenet or other sorts of mailing lists.. back then they likely had university access to the Internet and had to obtain the X source directly from MIT's FTP servers, compiling it manually.

Looking at the X10R3 tarball that's available at ftp.x.org, many of the files are dated 1985/1986.. 4.3BSD and Ultrix-32 appear to be the only supported operating systems at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11#Release_history

It looks like there was at one point a port of X for DOS, can't find much information about it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko View Post
With all due respect that is just grossly inaccurate statement. It could not be further from the truth.

X has been created at MIT as a part of Athena project when PCs barely existed for the type of machines popularly known as Unix workstations. What we call today PC is a grandchild of 1983 IBM attempt to get into micro computer market which was until then dominated by start ups and mish mash hardware. PCs (micro computers) have not been taken seriously by X, Unix, VMS and if you like computer community at large at least until late nineties and the demise of large proprietary Unix vendors as DEC, SGI, and if you like SUN. Please !!! we have not had any PC machines at the universities in U.S. probably until 2000. It was all SUN, SGI and aging DEC hardware.

PCs have never been created as multi-user machines. Why would PCs need network ready X server? They didn't have any graphical interface to speak of until mid 90s and Windows 1995. X traditionally required Unix or VMS as underlining OS. I am not aware that X was ever ported to DOS but I might be wrong about it.

Unix has been ported to PCs by Microsoft (Xenix) which ditch it in favor of much less hardware hungry DOS because
PCs could not run Unix shell let alone Unix+X.

BSDs have traditionally being hacked on HP risk stations and SUN hardware. Marriage of BSDs and if you like Unix
with PCs is marriage of convenience not love. Nothing could make me more happy than to see rise of another RISK
based hardware vendor targeting workstation market.

Whole idea of X being for PC is such Linuxism that it just makes me mad
There WAS an X11 for DOS. It was called Desqview/X and required the memory manager "Qemm" version 9.x for proper operation.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2009
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryP View Post
Some scientific needs for processor time must be insanely heavy loads....
No question about that Terry. Scientific/engineering computation has always, and will always, take a lot of horsepower. Like much of the rest the software world, the tools have expanded to fit the available horsepower. But the average Desktop these days is much more powerful than the mainframes or yore, and what one can do at the desktop with standard tools (if you don't code it yourself) is very impressive.

The difference between the classical workstations and the "consumer" PC also has narrowed. When I had my Sun (4.3BSD, 20MHz, 16MB memory, 19" screen) the average computer others used was 8086-based, 8MHz, with a 10" to 12" screen, running DOS. The DOS boxes could not even address 16MB memory, let alone use virtual memory. That sort of difference has faded now, though some of the monster 8-core or higher systems come close.

Today, if you have a truly huge problem to solve, you do it on a cluster. Ask Oko about that, since he runs computational clusters.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2009
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbsduser View Post
There WAS an X11 for DOS. It was called Desqview/X and required the memory manager "Qemm" version 9.x for proper operation.
I remember those! Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2009
Oliver_H's Avatar
Oliver_H Oliver_H is offline
Real Name: Oliver Herold
UNIX lover
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 429
Thanked 26 Times in 22 Posts
Default

@Terryp, sorry - just took it the wrong way ;-)
__________________
use UNIX or die :-)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Installing Xorg NetBSD NetBSD Installation and Upgrading 20 9th June 2009 02:22 PM
Xorg installation LordZ OpenBSD Installation and Upgrading 10 23rd November 2008 05:52 PM
Is xorg necessary....... rex FreeBSD General 10 19th October 2008 03:05 PM
xorg bug? enterhaken FreeBSD Ports and Packages 9 17th July 2008 02:38 PM
Xorg sluggishness tanked FreeBSD Ports and Packages 2 17th May 2008 08:10 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick