Talk:X.Org Server

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Update 2 User-friendly 3 Requested move 4 What's the name? 5 Common codebase? 6 Name of this article

[edit] Update

Hello, According to distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian), Debian has switched to XOrg since Etch (Testing).

[edit] User-friendly

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

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.

[edit] Requested move

The title of this article is big, cumbersome, and difficult to locate. The title should contain "X.org" or "X.Org", and not "XOrg" or "Xorg". However, finding an appropriate new title is not easy. X.org is too ambiguous. Perhaps X.org X11 or thereabouts? Chris 02:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Instead of moving this it should probably be merged with X.Org Foundation as I don't think it warrants a separate article. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a crappy title. I started the article under this name as this was the name on the X.Org site. Dunno if it has an official name other than this. If this is what the software is called, this is what the software is called ... unless they've picked a less cumbersome proper name.

The article should not be merged with X.Org Foundation - that article is about the nonprofit corporation, this article is about some software produced under its auspices - David Gerard 09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the reference to The Cathedral and the Bazaar really that necessary here? It seems gratuitous to me. --Andyluciano 18 Aug 2005, 14:41 (UTC)

The XFree86/Xorg split is pretty much a classic CatB example - David Gerard 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's the name?

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)

[edit] Common codebase?

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)

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)

[edit] Name of this article

The official website for X.Org says it "provides an open source implementation of the X Window System"[1] 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:

<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.130.179.31|66.130.179.31]] ([[User talk:66.130.179.31|talk]]) 06:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
$ X -version

X Window System Version 1.3.0
Release Date: 19 April 2007
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 1.3

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to rename this article to just "X.org", since it is (its current version >> 7.3) a complete windowing system including (among others) a server and many libraries and utilities, and not just a server. That would also be consistent with the XFree86 article (another implementation of the X Window System, like Xorg. The current name is misleading. 66.130.179.31 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)