X11/OpenGL/Redhat

[Mike A. Harris]

This is an older mail, but inaccurate, so I felt I should respond.

Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> to simplify
> RedHat still use XFree86 on old system but Red Hat 4 (beta) have xorg-
> x11-6.8.1 , last xorg release comes from one copy (trunk) of Xfree
> 4.4cvs tree before Xfree86 change is license.

s/RedHat/Red Hat/

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 provides XFree86 4.1.0, which was the
current XFree86 release at the time it shipped.  Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 3 provides XFree86 4.3.0 similarly.  Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 4 provides X.Org X11 6.8.x.

The Fedora Project releases of Fedora Core 2 and 3 provide X.Org
X11, and future Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases
will also ship X.Org X11.

Just wanted to clarify this for the original poster, as they seemed
to be new to X11.

TTYL


> Xfree and xorg comes and are compiled with one stable release of Mesa.
> 
> but development of Mesa is standalone and supports many others and
> systems.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 13:01 -0800, Peter Bismuti wrote: 
> 
>>I'm a little confused, perhaps someone could get me back on the right track.
>>
>>Xfree86 has become the standard open source X windowing system that is 
>>shipped with Linux bundles such as Redhat, but is there a different 
>>oepn-source implementation from X.org as well?  I got the impression there 
>>was from a posting I read,  but can't seem to verify whether or not this is 
>>true.
>>
>>(aside )  The confusion seems to be that some things that are actually 
>>defined as protocols (set of rules, API)  but their names are used to refer 
>>to a specific implementation (i.e. the standard one).  For Linux, is XFree86 
>>really the only game in town (other than the commercial ones such as XI)? 
>>Or is there another viable open-source alternative that may contain 
>>feautures I need and wouldn't take me 3 months to get configured and running 
>>properly.
>>
>>Specifically, it seems that currently XFree86 does not support a feature 
>>that was posted by someone as existing in "X Window System Version 11 
>>Release 6.8.1".
>>
>>If not, (if there is something besides XFree86), how simple would it be to 
>>get it off the ground, configured and running?  (I'm assuming that I could 
>>kiss Redhat support goodbye, which would be bad, but if necessary...)
>>
>>The similar confusion exists for OpenGL.  Is Mesa really the only game in 
>>town for Linux (Redhat Enterprise WS3, again, not counting commercial 
>>implementations)?  SGI has an open source implementation of OpenGL ported to 
>>Linux I believe, but is it really practical to choose it over Mesa if 
>>porting applications to Redhat E3 WS?  Or is Mesa just too integrated with 
>>Redhat.
>>
>>In theory XFree86 and Mesa should be decoupled from eachother so each could 
>>be swapped out with other implementations.  In reality, are they?  Or will 
>>choosing a different implementaton of each cause me months of headaches?
>>
>>Perhaps a good commercial version would be worth it as a last reset. 
>>Specifically, there is functionality in SGIs that is not supported on PC 
>>hardware and must be emulated in software, such as:
>>
>>1. dual layers (one layer of pseudo-color or grey scale and another of 
>>true-color).
>>
>>2.  12-bit pseudocolor, currently not supported by any PC graphics cards 
>>that I'm aware of.
>>
>>Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>Thanks in Advance.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>xorg mailing list
>>xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
>>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg