Re: Suggestion for XFree86

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:11:12PM +0000, Torgeir Veimo wrote:
>Let me first say that I really appreciate the efforst of the members of
>the XFree86 project. I use your software every day.
>
>On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 19:07, Frank LaMonica wrote:
>> David Dawes has asked that anyone with an interest in X or XFree86
>> contribute to this discussion, so I am taking this opportunity to air a
>> suggestion that I hope the current BOD and slate of XFree86 officers will
>> seriously consider.
>
>I'm not shure a voting model would work at all. A voting model works
>when there is a budget with money to spend. Where one can hire someone
>to perform a task, to develop something. It doesn't work when most of
>the work is voluntary. You simply cannot say to someone who works in
>their spare time to do this and that, because it was the outcome of a
>democratic vote. 
>
>A better model is one where working code speaks by itself, where the one
>can judge based on technical merit, is the best model. I think the
>problem a lot of people see is that this is not how things works with
>how the XFree86 codebase evolves. 

Actually, that is how it works.  XFree86 is nothing without the
code from it's contributors, and it is precisely those who contribute
who determine the direction of XFree86.  It's obvious that the
public perception is different from this.

Most of the complaints are either centred on some imagined heavy-handed
management that controls what everyone does (those who do contribute
should answer if they feel this is true or not), or on the meritocracy
that leads XFree86.  Everyone involved with XFree86 has come from
the community.  This is a truly volunteer organisation, and its
direction is not dictated by people who haven't invested large
amounts of their own blood, sweat, and tears in keeping X alive
when others abandoned it, and in making XFree86 what it is today.

Some of those really old X guys (pre XFree86) left X for dead in
the early '90s.  Now that they've seen that their attitudes then
were short-sighted, they want to come back and take over where they
left off.  If we'd listened to them, we'd have abandoned it too.
And they want us all to follow their lead now? "Thanks for keeping
it alive guys, but we'll take it from here," is the attitude.

If people want a reason for why the Linux desktop isn't where it
could be today, consider that it might be because these people and
various Linux vendors didn't have enough faith in the Linux desktop
to invest their efforts in it years ago (remember: Linux was a
"server" OS).  We did because we believed in Linux and we are proud
that we helped make it happen.

>Second, think about which areas of the code repository, the code itself,
>or the build system which could be improved to make it easier for
>someone unfamiliar with the XFree86 cvs tree to make use of parts of the
>code. For instance, Imake may have been very good five years ago, but is
>not very widely used today. Could things have been improved by using eg.
>autoconf? What if someone wants to make use of the X server protocol
>code to implement X11 compatibility on their fuzzy logic windows system
>that only runs on 68k amigas? Are those things as easy to do as they
>could be?
>
>A lot of people are of the opinion that the X protocol itself is a
>barrier to improving the "multimedia desktop experience" on Linux.
>Instead of dismissing their claim, let them experience it for
>themselves. Make it easier for them to try to implement their own
>personal alternative to the XFree86 X window server. Let them fail, gain
>some experience in why things are done the way they are, and you gain
>valuable resources which will later contribute back to the XFree86
>codebase.
>
>Can the modularization of the XFree86 code be strengthened? Can eg XAA
>drivers be made easier to use outside of the XFree86 X server. If
>someone crazy enough wants to make use of these drivers in the kernel,
>let them try and fail if they absolutely must. Make it easy for joe
>developer to copy anything under directory xyz/Xserver/moduleB into a
>separate directory, and do a make to get a dll with functionality he can
>use to implement his Q windows server with integrated lisp interpreter
>for his welsh window manager. Just make it easier for these to 

A lot of things can be done.  There are lots of great ideas.  Many
think that "XFree86" should do them.  But what is this "XFree86"
that should do these things?  It's individuals from the community
who write XFree86 code.

>What about the XFree86 cvs repository, how big is that? Are there
>directions available for those that only wants to get and build their
>own XFree86 X server? Do they need to download 300 megabytes of source
>in order to discover how to change a property in Imakefile X in
>directory Y in order to build only the server?

Last I checked, the Linux kernel source (2.5.6x) is about 180MB.
Same order of magnitude.  Throw out the spec docs (50MB) and fonts
(100MB) from the XFree86 source tree, which you don't need for a
build, and you're down from 300MB to 150MB for XFree86.

>I guess a lot of my comments are really not related to the discussion
>here, which seems to revolve around really experienced XFree86
>developers wanting more influence on development directions. But I do
>think my comments are valid. 

Your comments (and those of everyone else) are most welcome.

Thanks.

David
-- 
David Dawes
Release Engineer/Architect                      The XFree86 Project
www.XFree86.org/~dawes