Talk:Xlib

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Linux Mid‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anyone know how old the version of the O'Reilly book in http://www.sbin.org/doc/Xlib/ is? It mentions X11R5 but not R6. Mostly, though, I'm just amused with the line from the introduction that says "the X11 subroutine library (Xlib) is expected to be stable for several years and to be at least a de facto industry standard." (Heh, think they consider it to have been "several years" yet?) --Dirk Gently 05:00:42, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can get a *download* for Xlib / X11 / X Window for my Redhat Linux 9. I was looking for a download for last few days ! Here also I couldnt find the information regarding the download. <[email protected]> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.85.131 (talk • contribs) 13. dec 2005 kl. 07:01

To do

description on how using Xlib differs from the direct use of the X protocol (which is almost never done)
functions that are specific to Xlib (resources, contexts)
images (difference with pixmaps)

Anything else? - Liberatore(T) 19:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of a related article

I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). - Liberatore(T) 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTK

AFAIK GTK is not build over xlib directly but over GDK which is indeed over xlib —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.209.95 (talk • contribs) 27. aug 2006 kl. 16:25

In a quick check, /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgtk-3.so.0 uses these Xlib symbols directly:

XChangeProperty XClearArea XExtendedMaxRequestSize XFixesChangeSaveSet XFlush XFree XGetSelectionOwner XGetWMNormalHints XGetWindowAttributes XGetWindowProperty XGrabKey XGrabServer XIGrabKeycode XIUngrabKeycode XInternAtom XKeysymToKeycode XMaxRequestSize XSelectInput XSendEvent XSync XUngrabKey XUngrabServer.

GDK uses far more symbols from Xlib, but GTK does use it directly. TEDickey (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

xLib for Texas Instruments Graphics Calculators

Just thought I'd point out that xLib is a graphics library bundled with certain TI calculators. You may want to create a disambiguation page or something. 72.25.192.4 (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appeared around 1985

The oldest source available is X.V10R3, which has almost entirely 1985 copyright dates. In particular, the Xlib portion has only 2 of 163 copyright notices with 1984 and 1985. The other files are copyrighted 1985. Saying "around 1985" is misleading, and replacing that with "circa" is not an improvement. TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question about 1985?

In the X.V10R3 sources, all of the copyrights in the X directory (corresponding to this topic) say

/* Copyright    Massachusetts Institute of Technology    1985   */

and the README file concludes with

                                        Robert W. Scheifler
                                        MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
                                        August 1985

The newest file in that directory is from February 1986. In the sources, 416 files have a 1985 copyright date, 161 with 1986. It seems that at least one release of X took place during 1985. According to comments [1] and here, it required a licensing agreement with MIT (comment apparently by Jim Fulton, who was an early X developer). TEDickey (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xlib and XCB

Here is an alternate link for the failed verification in paragraph 2:

"Xlib and XCB compatibility was achieved by rebuilding libX11 as a layer on top of libxcb."

https://www.x.org/wiki/guide/xlib-and-xcb/#index2h2 173.245.132.79 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not suitable, since it gives the reader no clue regarding when this happened. I found a suitable source and trimmed the editorialization which detracted from the topic TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xlib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060923165147/http://users.actcom.co.il/~choo/lupg/tutorials/xlib-programming/xlib-programming.html to http://users.actcom.co.il/~choo/lupg/tutorials/xlib-programming/xlib-programming.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional term is not part of title

The phrase "Definitive Guides", etc., does not appear on the title or copyright pages of these books. It is merely a promotional term which should not be part of the citation TEDickey (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]