What are comparisons of Xenocara with Xorg, and perhaps Wayland

sidetone

sidetone

I have never used Xenocara, and haven't used OpenBSD.

What are benefits or comparisons for Xenocara over Xorg? I've heard about security benefits. What about ease of configuration for file or driver access? Also, are there desktop performance benefits? Or are there improvements in dependencies, including build dependencies?

Also, anything regarding the future or present of Wayland in any way related or could be related to Xorg or any derivative, including pieces of it to be used alongside Xorg or possibly in the future Xenocara. Anything also related to Xenocara, and Xorg derivatives or forks...

I've wondered about Xenocara and Wayland for a while. Thread the-no-future-of-x-org-freebsd-becomes-headless.91235, which for immediate clarification, the title is incorrect, prompted me to start a thread about this. Xorg is maintained by both FreeDesktop.org (of the Linux Foundation) as a fork, and still under the original X.org Foundation, regardless of what Redhat does.
 
From www.xenocara.org:
"Xenocarais the name chosen for the version of X included in OpenBSD. It is currently based on X.Org 7.7 and its dependencies.

The goal of Xenocara is to provide a framework to host local modifications and to automate the build of the modular X.Org components, including 3rd party packages and some software maintained by OpenBSD developers. It is not a fork. We are tracking X.Org modifications and try to push back our changes whenever they are good for upstreams too.

To learn more about Xenocara, read this old article on Undeadly or listen to that BSD Talk interview."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top