Re: Move X definition to IETF?

>From: Toplica Tanaskovic <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [forum] Move X definition to IETF?
>User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by smtp1.eunet.yu id 
h2OLaFV22637
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=6.0 
tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, 
SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_KMAIL version=2.41
>X-Spam-Level: 
>X-BeenThere: [email protected]
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9
>List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
>List-Subscribe: <http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum>, 
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: A public forum for discussion about the future of XFree86 
<forum.XFree86.Org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum>, 
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://XFree86.Org/pipermail/forum/>
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:36:13 +0100  Toplica Tanaskovic wrote:
>
>Dana ponedeljak 24. mart 2003. 19:13, [email protected] je napisao/la:
>> The IETF, with only a few exceptions, does not standardize
>> API's; it generally only works on wire protocols.
>> 				- Jim
>>
>> > Sender: [email protected]
>> > From: Ed Warnicke <[email protected]>
>> > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:23:38 -0500
>> > To: [email protected]
>> > Subject: [forum] Move X definition to IETF?
>> > -----
>> > There has been some comment in this forum about the
>> > need to split the definition of X ( which used to
>> > reside with X.org ) from the implementation of
>> > X ( XFree86.org ).  Might it not be a good idea to
>> > try to move the definition of X over to the IETF?
>> >
>> > X is, afterall, a network protocol.  The IETF is
>> > arguably the most successful standards body for
>> > the definition of network protocols in history.
>> >
>> > Also, the IETF is extremely open, which seems to
>> > be something that X.org lacked, and which folks
>> > are complaining about in XFree86.
>>
>	It doesn't really mather whether it will or it won't be moved. I can 
see 
>IMHO, that here people are arguing about everything, and thats good, a lot 
of 
>posts -> a lot of ideas. However, I haven't seen any idea how to improve 
>speed. Speed is the very first thing which needs to be revised. I hate to 
see 
>on my KT400 mobo with R9000, window which apears with 0.5-1 sec delay, and 
>there is no disk I/O or something like that.
>	From my end-user point of view, I think X is good but slow. Some 
people will 
>say but you have remote this ability, remote that... Face it guys, over 75% 
>of users doesn't even know of such possibility, of the 25% who know half of 
>them have no need of such a thing.
>	IMHO, there should be, 4.X.X branch which will produce bugfixes, 
drivers, 
>etc. for 4.X.X tree, and 5.0 branch should be formed, which will start from 
>almost zero, trying to develop, fastest windowing system for local use, and 
>of course, provide same things as 4.X.X about remote stuff.
>Of course 5.0 should have pandan for DirectX, and it would be IMHO wise to 
>integrate sound support too, for multimedia at one place.

X.Org is supporting the development of MAS, their new standard for 
sound-server/multi-media support for X. The MAS project site is

http://www.MediaApplicationServer.net. It is an X-Licensed open project. You 
are welcome to download and/or participate.

Leon , (member X.Org Exec Comm & Head of MAS development group)

 

>-- 
>Pozdrav,
>Tanasković Toplica
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Forum mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum