Re: A strawman proposal for X.org & XFree86.org

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:15:21PM +0300, Vadim Plessky wrote: 
> 1) wether Sun and other X.org members take *as commitment* duty to develop 
> support (or backport existing code from XFree86 CVS) for existing and 
> upcoming XFRee86 extensions, like RENDER, Xr, Xc?
> 
> Without such commitment from X.org members *in written*, with timetable to 
> complete the port specified, further discussions about merging X.org and 
> XFree86.org make no sense, IMHO.

You're putting the cart before the horse. First we should decide how
to decide (establish a process) for what is in our shared X, then we
use that decided-upon process to add things like Xr and Xc.

> 2) there is nothing said about trimming X codebase, and in particular - 
> eliminating support for PCF and BDF fonts in favour of Freetype backend and 
> TTF fonts with embedded bitmaps.
> Many open-source developers are concerned with XFree86 codebase size, and they 
> expect trimming fat from codebase (and not merging with X11R6.7)

This is way too much of a technical detail to decide in advance. 

> 3) my experience of talking to engineers/sales&marketing people in couple of 
> "leading UNIX vendors" shows that people from those companies are very proud 
> with their "in-house" UNIX implementations, and mostly consider open-source 
> software as a joke.
> Therefor, I doubt that X.org memebers would accept your proposal .
> But let's hear some voices first.

The people making this proposal are key developers from Sun's X group.

Havoc