Re: some XFree86 5.0 questions...

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:43:57PM -0500, David Wexelblat wrote:

Generally, a very interesting read David.  Good to hear it.  Some
comments inter-posted.  I should note that I am neither a developer
of XFree86 nor a commercial interest in X.

> So why is it that everyone feels like they can tell XFree86 how to run
> their
> project? This I cannot fathom. XFree86 is far more open than some Open
> Source projects; far less open than others.

I think XFree86 has come such a huge way in this direction and so many
people seem to have not noticed.  Following modern XFree86 development
is easy for casual readers like me.  If I had the time to be involved,
that path is pretty clear.  People who say otherwise do not have the
patience to read the lists and documentation.

> Now, for the questions of "who defines X", this is a very interesting
> question.

IMHO, by far the most under-considered question about X, and the most
interesting of all the good points in your email.

> Formally, officially, X.Org defines X. But as far as most of the
> world can tell, they've abdicated, and so XFree86 de-facto defines X (at the
> moment). Is this how it should be?

Very, very easy question: YES.  The XFree86 project has consistently
produced a quality piece of free software.  One of the most important
pieces of free software.  X.Org's relevance is diminutive these days.
XFree86 has been (IMHO) the driving X force since the announcement of
XFree86 4.0 after the proposed licensing changes for X11R6.4.

> That's a very important question to be
> answered. XFree86 was never about "defining X". It was about "fix what's
> broken, and support some new devices and platforms". Only relatively
> recently did XFree86 wind up defining X.

If XFree86 had done a poor job, I doubt X.Org would've so silently
slipped into irrelevance, since they (presumably) care about what X's
definition ends up being.

> I think it's a VERY important discussion to have. And I hope it's what
> happens in this forum. It is my personal opinion that "defining X" really
> belongs with an organization that enjoys formal standards, verification
> suites, etc. My personal suggestion would be for LSB to take it on. I think
> XFree86 is better left building/fixing X than defining it. But that's my
> opinion, and I don't even use X, so it probably counts for nothing.

I disagree for two reasons:

1) The XFree86 organization and the community surrounding it is the
easiest to access expertise on X.  It's abilities have been proven.
I read the Xpert mailing list (and now devel that it's open) for a long
time and there's simply a great collection of people who know what
they're talking about.  No one advocates reinventing the wheel in
software - why do it in management?

2) XFree86 *has* been the de facto definition of X for a fair amount of
time now.  I think it's proven that it's up to the task.  I don't mean to
imply that things are perfect or ideal, but it beats the *hell* out of
negligence.  If X.Org wants to be into things again, great - let them.
But don't wait up.

> I've been
> working in the Windows world for years now, and client-server display
> systems are utterly irrelvent to the majority of real-world computer users.

You've obviously been brainwashed ::-).  It's only irrelevant now
because the majority of computer systems from a windowing system that
doesn't support client-server display systems.  If it is irrelevant to
this majority, that doesn't mean it *should* be.

But that's my opinion.

-- 
Ross Vandegrift
[email protected]

A Pope has a Water Cannon.                               It is a Water Cannon.
He fires Holy-Water from it.                        It is a Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses it.                                 It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses the Hell out of it.          It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He has it pierced.                It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He makes it official.       It is a Canon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
Batman and Robin arrive.                                       He shoots them.