Re: Discussing issues

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Mark Vojkovich wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:

> > Havoc Pennington <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > It seems like a lot of this conflict comes from some people
> > > assuming XFree86 was more or less a porting project, and others
> > > assuming it was "the" X project including driving new features.

> > Yes, I think that is clear to me now also. However one thing that I think
> > needs to be said, is that XFree86 really is "the" X project for Linux,
> > FreeBSD, OpenBSD and other Open Source and free software platforms. Sure,
> > someone can build their own X server and replace XFree86, but at the end
> > of the day this is simply not practical. XFree86 and the extensions in
> > XFree86 are now so entrenched in the Open Source and free software
> > community (especially all the distros out there), that the only option is
> > really to extend XFree86 and not try to replace it.

> > Which really means that XFree86 has transitioned from being just a
> > porting project to really being "the" X implementation for all Open
> > Source and free software platforms. With that comes the responsibility of
> > managing X technologies effectively for those platforms. You can argue
> > that you don't think XFree86 should be doing that, but I don't think you
> > can argue against the fact that XFree86 really is the driving force for X
> > technologies on Open Source and free software platforms.

>    Good analysis.  In retrospect, that's probably right on the mark.

>    I don't think XFree86 volunteered for that position.  It was
> one that was thrust upon the project because there was no one
> else to carry that burden.  And now it's being criticized for not
> doing a very good job at it.  I think the solution is that
> XFree86 should not be the umbrella that covers all these concerns,
> but under the umbrella of a larger organization.  I think XFree86
> itself should stick to what it has historically done, and that
> is the implementation.  We have the experience in that area, and
> though some processes need to be refined to scale better, that's
> something that can be fixed.

I agree whole-heartedly, but I'd add one qualification.  Well, not a
qualification exactly, but a broadening.  I'd delete every reference to
"Open Software" and "free" in what I've quoted above.

Yes, several big names have approached us with an interest in replacing
their proprietary X implementations with XFree86.  To my way of thinking,
this makes it critical that XFree86 get and stay out of the specification
business.  Otherwise, the project will almost certainly find itself in an
unwanted conflict of interest.

Marc.

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|  Marc Aurele La France           |  work:   1-780-492-9310           |
|  Computing and Network Services  |  fax:    1-780-492-1729           |
|  352 General Services Building   |  email:  [email protected]          |
|  University of Alberta           +-----------------------------------+
|  Edmonton, Alberta               |                                   |
|  T6G 2H1                         |     Standard disclaimers apply    |
|  CANADA                          |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
XFree86 Core Team member.  ATI driver and X server internals.