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

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:21:46PM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> On Sunday 30 March 2003 21:23, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> |  On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:42:12AM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |  > I mean, we should make it clear:  either you commit yourself to
> |  > implementing all necessary extensions (not only Render, but Xr/Xc/RandR
> |  > as well) to X on a timely basis, or we do not allow you to participate
> |  > in further development of standards.
> |
> |  There's plenty of incentive to ship the standard without having silly
> |  rules like that. Lots of software such as GNOME and KDE will use
> |  standard features, so everyone will have plenty of incentive to ship
> |  the standard features. You don't need incentive beyond that. If part
> |  of the standard genuinely offers no value, there's no reason to
> |  require people to follow it.
> 
> I think we have following points in our discussions:
> * what is the current standard(s)

There is confusion over what the current standards are?

> * who decides what is going in and what - not
> * what features are necessary (in XFree86) to build successfull Linux (UNIX) 
> Desktop?
> 
> If there is a nice standard - than no doubt, both GNOME and KDE would pick it 
> up.
> But what would happen if there is no common standard?..

I'm sorry but exactly what kind of standard is required here? And to what
end? To replace GTK and QT with a single implementation? QT is developed by
TrollTech with further goals than simply an Xlib toolkit, and probably
different goals from GTK. What I think you are suggesting seems irrational.


Ben
-- 
I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.

http://www.icculus.org/openbox/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+h3NV8mPQRGtSu14RAj0mAJ4/s8ESSmtip8AmCmV9ox7hN/7YNwCcDlU3
cZ4XDBeRjAV49+D0xMXNVFA=
=S6IM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----