Re: Keith Packard issue

 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2003 09:55:08 AM
To: [email protected]; Alan Cox
Subject: Re: [forum] Keith Packard issue
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 20 March 2003 15:01, Alan Cox wrote:
> > FYI: the Keith Packard issue is now on Slashdot.org.
>
> The "Keith Packard" issue or the XFree86 issue ?

Correct. The post which is going on all news sites now is IMHO one of the
most 
insulting posts that I ever read. Everyone who knows Keithp in person knows 
that we're discussing a thing here that is bugging literally everyone: 
developers from desktop projects like KDE and GNOME, distributors and UNIX 
derivates such as the BSD's and in the end, users and support companies who 
have to live with the stuff they get from XFree86.

What do you mean "get from XFree86"?  Don't you mean what people 'give to
XFree86".
If they want something in why don't they send the patch in?

 If instead you mean for XFree86 developers to develop another's  idea that
was posted or discussed on one of the XFree86 mailing lists, well then you
get it to the thorny issue of 'interest'.  If you can't do it then you have
to 'interest' someone who can, right?  Good case for learning how 
to do itself if you ask me.

Georgina

Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else.
James Barrie, author of Peter Pan.