On Thursday 08 April 2004 11:14, Vince Negri wrote:
More generally, as I understand it Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian (and thus almost certainly all debian-based distros like Lindows) have all abandoned XFree86 (and are thus X.org bound) Not sure about Red Hat, but I would hardly be surprised if they also go to X.org. So the long-term health of XFree86 is in question unless they can come up with a new technology that offers a compelling reason for vendors to use XFree instead of X.org.
Yes, or unless they see the error of their ways and change the licence back. The OpenBSD people had a good go at them, but it's not too late to address your polite but forceful mails to the XFree86 project to try to get them to remember the free part. The whole fork situation is a pity.
Hmmm... Do you really think? The XFree86 project had some issues in the past (remember the issue with Keith Packard), and the X.org implementation (Keith is involved :-) is going to implement some of the nice things Keith has built. So personally I'm optimistic about this new 'X' chapter. Regards Harry
On Thursday 08 April 2004 14:34, Berge, Harry ten wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2004 11:14, Vince Negri wrote:
More generally, as I understand it Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian (and thus almost certainly all debian-based distros like Lindows) have all abandoned XFree86 (and are thus X.org bound) Not sure about Red Hat, but I would hardly be surprised if they also go to X.org. So the long-term health of XFree86 is in question unless they can come up with a new technology that offers a
compelling
reason for vendors to use XFree instead of X.org.
Yes, or unless they see the error of their ways and change the licence back. The OpenBSD people had a good go at them, but it's not too late to address your polite but forceful mails to the XFree86 project to try to get them to remember the free part. The whole fork situation is a pity.
Hmmm... Do you really think? The XFree86 project had some issues in the past (remember the issue with Keith Packard), and the X.org implementation (Keith is involved :-) is going to implement some of the nice things Keith has built. So personally I'm optimistic about this new 'X' chapter.
Well - you could easily be right, and since spring is gradually coming to my lurking places in the wet northern hills let's take a more optimistic view. Perhaps X.org will bring out more innovators with good ideas on free licensing - Cheers Fergus
Regards Harry
-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 08 April 2004 07:06, Fergus Wilde wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2004 14:34, Berge, Harry ten wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2004 11:14, Vince Negri wrote:
More generally, as I understand it Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian (and thus almost certainly all debian-based distros like Lindows) have all abandoned XFree86 (and are thus X.org bound) Not sure about Red Hat, but I would hardly be surprised if they also go to X.org. So the long-term health of XFree86 is in question unless they can come up with a new technology that offers a
compelling
reason for vendors to use XFree instead of X.org.
Yes, or unless they see the error of their ways and change the licence back. The OpenBSD people had a good go at them, but it's not too late to address your polite but forceful mails to the XFree86 project to try to get them to remember the free part. The whole fork situation is a pity.
Hmmm... Do you really think? The XFree86 project had some issues in the past (remember the issue with Keith Packard), and the X.org implementation (Keith is involved :-) is going to implement some of the nice things Keith has built. So personally I'm optimistic about this new 'X' chapter.
Well - you could easily be right, and since spring is gradually coming to my lurking places in the wet northern hills let's take a more optimistic view. Perhaps X.org will bring out more innovators with good ideas on free licensing - Cheers Fergus
One of the biggest complaints of the XF86 committee is A) it's rather closed off for the general public and many of the devs feel alienated from XFree86. B) Subjective complaints r/t "A", wherein the XF86 commitee devs are arogant, engage in infighting within the org and generally are not all that friendly or open [again - subjective]. C) That development goes much much too slow. The XF86 dev (the core team) tends to only go with what they know to be stable - also it's a voluntary org and they have lost a fair amount of ancillary devs - hence an even bigger increase in the turn around - case in point - work with the ATI devs for the radeon driver, took too long and only ended up implimenting a meager portion of the code available - or so I have been led to believe. Overall the politics in the XFree86 core team is something many find distasteful and problematic. Keith Packard and others at X.org have a more open and pragmatic outlook on the development process. Everything from X's core to 3D to network functions, etc. etc.. They are more inline with the OSS mentallity. That being that there is a lot of capable and talented people out there that can contrib to X.org's efforts but don't necessarily want to do so full time. Likewise they have a focus on implement a more robust Xserver (and XF86 people often interpret this as somewhat unstable). At least that is the sense I get from the various forums and articles about the issue. Pair that with the new License that has many scratching their heads and "Houston we have a problem" - IMHO. There has been some limited discussion about XFree86 vs X.org offerings on the Beta list. And the issue again revolves around the licensing. Frankly, my personal opinion is that XFree86 upper echelon have shot themselves in the foot. The question is can X.org provide the core code and still innovate - do they have the manpower and support/funding to make them viable? Just MHO. Curtis. :) - -- Spammers Beware: Tresspassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again! Warning: Individuals throwing objects at the crocodiles will be asked to retrieve them! If pro is the opposite of con, then the opposite of progress must be congress! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAeHSC7CQBg4DqqCwRAmjcAJ42B8dQZPb63GqzsgKp++e2PFipnwCgwf55 S2JrPG48iMEjLpLiAgRQYlo= =rVic -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Saturday 10 April 2004 6:26 pm, Curtis Rey wrote: [snip]
issue again revolves around the licensing. Frankly, my personal opinion is that XFree86 upper echelon have shot themselves in the foot. The question is can X.org provide the core code and still innovate - do they have the manpower and support/funding to make them viable?
If SuSE and some others got behind it 100%, YES, they would, and I'd very much like to see that happen!! Fred -- "Steve Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."
X-Windows DEV has been having problem for years, developers have been fustrated with the management, Some have gathered under Xouvert (www.xouvert.org) maybe, they can also join a new "Standard"... Jerry On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 07:18, Fred Miller wrote:
On Saturday 10 April 2004 6:26 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
[snip]
issue again revolves around the licensing. Frankly, my personal opinion is that XFree86 upper echelon have shot themselves in the foot. The question is can X.org provide the core code and still innovate - do they have the manpower and support/funding to make them viable?
If SuSE and some others got behind it 100%, YES, they would, and I'd very much like to see that happen!!
Fred
-- "Steve Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."
participants (5)
-
Berge, Harry ten -
Curtis Rey -
Fergus Wilde -
Fred Miller -
Jerome R. Westrick