Light Weight X "clone" - Minix

This is a discussion on Light Weight X "clone" - Minix ; Hello all, I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X "clone" to operate on Minix 3. However I am incapable of acheiving ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Light Weight X "clone"

  1. Light Weight X "clone"

    Hello all,

    I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    "clone" to operate on Minix 3.

    However I am incapable of acheiving such a feat alone, and wonder if
    there is anyone else out there interested in partaking in such a
    venture? If you are, reply to this post so I can see how many people
    there are and to see if it's a viable project.

    I for one believe that X (free86, and org) has become too bloated and
    needs to be simplified... the same way the Minix microkernel has been.

    Thank you alll and I look forward to hearing from you,

    Brendan McKenzie


  2. Re: Light Weight X "clone"


    Brendan McKenzie wrote:
    > Hello all,
    >
    > I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    > interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    > "clone" to operate on Minix 3.
    >


    well, X is light. its the crap on top of it that is not. X is just a
    protocol like
    TCP/IP is.

    good luck on your venture.

    -Stu


  3. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    > > I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    > > interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    > > "clone" to operate on Minix 3.

    > well, X is light. its the crap on top of it that is not. X is just a
    > protocol like TCP/IP is.


    X.org has a monolithic, outfashioned architecture. Bloat is not really
    the issue.

    A microkernel system could put most of what an X Server does into the
    drivers and only have a small protocol translator IPC<->X.

    Well, it has been tried some times to replace X11Rsomething and they
    all have failed since. Would be quite an achivement to make a second
    implementation of X.

    hf beza1e1


  4. Re: Light Weight X "clone"


    beza1e1 wrote:

    > X.org has a monolithic, outfashioned architecture. Bloat is not really
    > the issue.
    >
    > A microkernel system could put most of what an X Server does into the
    > drivers and only have a small protocol translator IPC<->X.
    >
    > Well, it has been tried some times to replace X11Rsomething and they
    > all have failed since. Would be quite an achivement to make a second
    > implementation of X.
    >


    personally, I'd throw X away and write from scratch. I have Zero
    interest
    in networked windows protocol. I know some people love that X is
    net transparent but I could not care less. but thats just me.


  5. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    In article <1156258962.694691.154490@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
    stu wrote:
    >personally, I'd throw X away and write from scratch. I have Zero
    >interest
    >in networked windows protocol. I know some people love that X is
    >net transparent but I could not care less. but thats just me.


    The only IPC mechanism supported by Minix is message passing (there is
    no shared memory). So effectively, you will be using a networking protocol.

    If you want something simple it may be a good idea to look at Plan 9.

    On the other hand, one of the biggest drawbacks of X seems to be that
    all GUI style and logic code (decoration of windows and buttons, how
    menus operate, etc.) is linked with the applications.

    It seems to me that a better windowing system should provide an interface
    that is higher than simple bit blit operations.

    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

  6. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    Brendan McKenzie wrote:
    >
    > Hello all,
    >
    > I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    > interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    > "clone" to operate on Minix 3.
    >
    > However I am incapable of acheiving such a feat alone, and wonder if
    > there is anyone else out there interested in partaking in such a
    > venture? If you are, reply to this post so I can see how many people
    > there are and to see if it's a viable project.
    >
    > I for one believe that X (free86, and org) has become too bloated and
    > needs to be simplified... the same way the Minix microkernel has been.
    >
    > Thank you alll and I look forward to hearing from you,
    >
    > Brendan McKenzie


    Many years ago I proposed alternative solution.
    To make X server with embedded support of its own swap.

    My plan was such:
    make special processor of C code which would replace,
    all the operations with dynamic memory with
    special library plugging.
    This library should store on disk and/or compress memory
    blocks created by X server, and put them back into the scope memory
    when they are needed.

    I can do this, if somebody will help me to do the rest.
    It looks Kees J. Boot did not like such idea.

    I can do this if, I'll solve my troubles.
    Country where I have unpleasantness to live need
    to prove that I am psychically ill to be joint World Trade Organization.
    If am crazy it is OK, they bet me in Police, put me in jail for 8 days,
    stole my computer, ect..

    --Michaelo Quas.co.ua


  7. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    stu wrote:
    >
    > Brendan McKenzie wrote:
    > > Hello all,
    > >
    > > I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    > > interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    > > "clone" to operate on Minix 3.
    > >

    >
    > well, X is light. its the crap on top of it that is not. X is just a
    > protocol like
    > TCP/IP is.


    Well, could you point me on source or sources in Internet
    with description of X-protocol.


    >
    > good luck on your venture.
    >
    > -Stu




  8. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    In article <44EC4B28.7C7FE296@supermail.com.ua>,
    Quas.co.ua wrote:
    >
    >Many years ago I proposed alternative solution.
    >To make X server with embedded support of its own swap.
    >
    >My plan was such:
    >make special processor of C code which would replace,
    >all the operations with dynamic memory with
    >special library plugging.
    >This library should store on disk and/or compress memory
    >blocks created by X server, and put them back into the scope memory
    >when they are needed.
    >
    >I can do this, if somebody will help me to do the rest.
    >It looks Kees J. Boot did not like such idea.


    I'm not smart enough to understand it. That's why Andy kicked me out of
    Minix development.
    --
    Kees J. Bot, Systems Programmer, Sciences dept., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  9. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    Kees J Bot wrote:
    >
    > In article <44EC4B28.7C7FE296@supermail.com.ua>,
    > Quas.co.ua wrote:
    > >
    > >Many years ago I proposed alternative solution.
    > >To make X server with embedded support of its own swap.
    > >
    > >My plan was such:
    > >make special processor of C code which would replace,
    > >all the operations with dynamic memory with
    > >special library plugging.
    > >This library should store on disk and/or compress memory
    > >blocks created by X server, and put them back into the scope memory
    > >when they are needed.
    > >
    > >I can do this, if somebody will help me to do the rest.
    > >It looks Kees J. Boot did not like such idea.

    >
    > I'm not smart enough to understand it. That's why Andy kicked me out of
    > Minix development.


    Only question, what that about that question, about the globe?

    By the way, about understanding,
    those days I asked only do system job,
    and some code process with special tools.

    That special tool would take some C-code, and translate into respective C-code.


    It is some code:

    .....
    struct some *a,*b,*c;
    .....
    a=calloc(sizeof(struct some),number);
    ......
    b=a;
    ......
    c=b+sizeof(struct some);
    ......
    d = *c;
    ......


    It is respective code:

    .....
    struct some *a,*b,*c,*respective_c;
    .....
    a=respective_malloc(sizeof(struct some),number);
    ......
    b=a;
    ......
    c=b+sizeof(struct some);
    ......
    if (*c!=respective_c) c=respect(c);
    d = *c;
    ......

    This manipulation makes at those parts of code which
    take memory as much.
    Result respective code compiles as usually, and links with library which has:
    all those respective_malloc();, respect();, ect();.
    Those functions care about swap, instead of the operation system.
    Idea is not new, this way of solution used in Pascal,
    but also suitable for C.
    (If you remember you have in your mail base my "supper-precious"
    code on pascal.)

    Such convertor and library I promised to take on myself.

    That was what I meant those days.

    --Quas.co.ua

    > --
    > Kees J. Bot, Systems Programmer, Sciences dept., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam



  10. Re: Light Weight X "clone"


    I think Minix does not need an X implementation. A better idea is to
    design a GUI api from
    scratch just like the Win32 API. And it should not be client server
    based like X is.


  11. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    Hello,

    > > > I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    > > > interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    > > > "clone" to operate on Minix 3.


    As it was said somewhere else, I'd prefer an API for graphical uses.

    > [...]
    > Well, could you point me on source or sources in Internet
    > with description of X-protocol.


    Take a look at RFC 1013: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1013.txt
    It may be outdated a bit (June 1987), but I think most applies still today.
    I never found a better documentation.

    > > good luck on your venture.


    Same from me.

    Regards,
    Sebastian



  12. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    Sebastian wrote:
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > > > > I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed but I would be
    > > > > interested in taking part in a venture to create a light weight X
    > > > > "clone" to operate on Minix 3.

    >
    > As it was said somewhere else, I'd prefer an API for graphical uses.
    >
    > > [...]
    > > Well, could you point me on source or sources in Internet
    > > with description of X-protocol.

    >
    > Take a look at RFC 1013: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1013.txt
    > It may be outdated a bit (June 1987), but I think most applies still today.
    > I never found a better documentation.
    >


    Thank you.

    > > > good luck on your venture.

    >
    > Same from me.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Sebastian


  13. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    waqar wrote:
    >
    > I think Minix does not need an X implementation. A better idea is to
    > design a GUI api from
    > scratch just like the Win32 API. And it should not be client server
    > based like X is.


    You may not beleive but Minix alredy passed such way of develoment,
    Minix2 had its own GUI which worked in EGA mode,
    even not ported for VGA.

    And Minix3 may not have any subsystem not Client Server based,
    because of its minimal kernel functionality.
    Even usual terminal in Minix3 is a server, if it is at all.


  14. Re: Light Weight X "clone"

    Op 2006-08-23, Quas.co.ua schreef :
    > Well, could you point me on source or sources in Internet
    > with description of X-protocol.


    http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases...7.1-1.2.tar.gz
    contains all X specifications, including the X11 protocol.

  15. Re: Minix2 GUI (was: Light Weight X "clone")

    Hello,

    > > I think Minix does not need an X implementation. A better idea is to
    > > design a GUI api from
    > > scratch just like the Win32 API. And it should not be client server
    > > based like X is.

    >
    > You may not beleive but Minix alredy passed such way of develoment,
    > Minix2 had its own GUI which worked in EGA mode,
    > even not ported for VGA.


    Can you please tell me which? I am running Minix 2.0.4 (i286/287) ...

    Regards,
    Sebastian



  16. Re: Minix2 GUI (was: Light Weight X "clone")

    Sebastian wrote:
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > > > I think Minix does not need an X implementation. A better idea is to
    > > > design a GUI api from
    > > > scratch just like the Win32 API. And it should not be client server
    > > > based like X is.

    > >
    > > You may not beleive but Minix alredy passed such way of develoment,
    > > Minix2 had its own GUI which worked in EGA mode,
    > > even not ported for VGA.

    >
    > Can you please tell me which? I am running Minix 2.0.4 (i286/287) ...
    >


    I'm afraid to look like a person who may not prove its words,
    (if I was able to prove some of I could say, I lived not here).
    but it is true, minix 2 or minix 1 had its own GUI.
    I guess Kees J. Bot can say.

    > Regards,
    > Sebastian



  17. Re: Minix2 GUI (was: Light Weight X "clone")

    Sebastian wrote:
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > > > I think Minix does not need an X implementation. A better idea is to
    > > > design a GUI api from
    > > > scratch just like the Win32 API. And it should not be client server
    > > > based like X is.

    > >
    > > You may not beleive but Minix alredy passed such way of develoment,
    > > Minix2 had its own GUI which worked in EGA mode,
    > > even not ported for VGA.

    >
    > Can you please tell me which? I am running Minix 2.0.4 (i286/287) ...
    >


    Take a look at "Mini X revisited" in this news group.

    > Regards,
    > Sebastian



  18. Re: Minix2 GUI (was: Light Weight X "clone")

    In article <44F3696D.6705668C@supermail.com.ua>,
    Quas.co.ua wrote:
    >
    >I'm afraid to look like a person who may not prove its words,
    >(if I was able to prove some of I could say, I lived not here).
    >but it is true, minix 2 or minix 1 had its own GUI.
    >I guess Kees J. Bot can say.


    I once added the MIOCGLDT86 and MIOCSLDT86 ioctls to the memory driver
    so the people working on mini-X could get access to video memory. (And
    maybe the MIOCINT86 call too to make simply BIOS calls to change the
    video mode.) They were happy with it, but I didn't see much of mini-X
    after that.

    (That's what my faulty memory says. I'd have to search my 295MB saved
    mail to get the details, but I'm not that interested in software
    archeology.)
    --
    Kees J. Bot, Systems Programmer, Sciences dept., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  19. Re: Minix2 GUI (was: Light Weight X "clone")

    Hello,

    > > [GUI]
    > > Can you please tell me which? I am running Minix 2.0.4 (i286/287) ...


    > Take a look at "Mini X revisited" in this news group.


    Thank you.

    Regards,
    Sebastian



  20. Re: Minix2 GUI (was: Light Weight X "clone")

    > > > I think Minix does not need an X implementation. A better idea
    is to
    > > > design a GUI api from
    > > > scratch just like the Win32 API. And it should not be client server
    > > > based like X is


    Sebastian wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > > > [GUI]
    > > > Can you please tell me which? I am running Minix 2.0.4 (i286/287) ...

    >
    > > Take a look at "Mini X revisited" in this news group.

    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Sebastian


    I would again like to say that minix needs a GUI that is standalone and
    does not support networking. Sombody mentioned in this post that once
    there existed a project. I think we should start again. The first
    problem that one is going to face will be SVGA drivers. I think porting
    svgalib will be a good idea and then build the gui on top of it.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast