Re: [XFree86] Re: Configuring OpenGL support in a new Build of XFree86

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Damian McGuckin wrote:
> >However, it appears, after the last few days of banging my head, it seems
> >that the way XFree86 is built now, it is relegating X11 on Linux to a game
> >engine and development box. That's not a problem.  I just hadn't realized
> >that this is the direction XFree86 was going currently.
> 
> No, that isn't "the direction that XFree86 is going currently".
> 
> >I was trying to force Linux into a networked engineering workstation
> >environment. The last time on worked seriously on X11 source, it would
> >have worked. But, it appears that XFree86 current design philosophies and
> >priorities mean that it won't fit my requirements without a lot more work.
> 
> XFree86's current design and priorities of development weren't 
> created to match your specific personal needs.  The development 
> is done by volunteers who basically work on whatever the hell 
> they are interested in working on, and if someone isn't working 
> on something, then they're probably not interested in doing so 
> currently.

I'm copying this to forum.

One of the major critisicms of the way XFree86 has been working is that
it has been ignoring features that are required to compete with MS Windows 
on the desktop.

It is perfectly valid to extrapolate that if things go on the way they
are doing, XFree86 will continue to ignore Damian's market sector.


> I doubt anyone here really cares if you install Windows XP on all 
> the machines and use DirectX.  Unless you're here to personally 
> contribute code, or to inquire about how to make contributions, 
> or to pay to have work done, you don't have a say in demanding 
> what work gets done, because things aren't done to meet your 
> personal schedule or agenda, or needs.  They're done to meet the 
> particular volunteers' own objectives.

Well, I will be very disappointed if Damian gives up on XFree86 and
uses Windows and Hummingbird Exceed. He has exactly the problem
that brought me into this game and made me maintain
  http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna/XFree86-3D-status.html
(which used to be mailed as a FAQ on the Mesa mailing list)
when it was an upto date description of the state of play.
I just regret that I don't have the combination of skills and time
to have been able to solve Damian's code myself.
Maybe it is time I reopened that page.

> If you want the software to do something it doesn't, then cough 
> up some money to have the feature(s) you want implemented, or 
> your cries and moans are falling completely on deaf ears.

So even if we don't have a constitution where those with the money
get the votes, money does determine what gets coded ?
If we had effective leadership, it could be used to persuade people
and companies to code, and fund coding, to make and keep XFree86 
technically strong.

Mike, I'm not objecting to you requesting that Damian buts his money
where is mouth is, but after all the flack XFree86 has got for
not being what Owen and Kieth P want, I'm defending an attempt
to pull XFree86 in the other ("my") direction.

Damian, I'm disappointed that XFree86 doesn't have a leadership
which is willing and able to go around your sector of the industry
and whip up a collection (whether of manpower or money) to
get this important piece of XFree86 in place.
Is there any way PESI can provide that leadership and coordination ?
(I do see that reducing the cost of your product may benefit your 
customers by reducing its price, more than it benefits you by increased
margin).

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[email protected]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna