xfree/xorg? - X

This is a discussion on xfree/xorg? - X ; Sorta Anonymous wrote: > hfrarg@nttvr2x3.pbgfr.arg (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote in > news:slrncs3hmf.vj.hfrarg@nttvr2x3.pbgfr.arg: > > >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/03/msg03502.html > > > Well,... I went & read the page, but I still don't feel enlightened. The > contents make it clear ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: xfree/xorg?

  1. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Sorta Anonymous wrote:
    > hfrarg@nttvr2x3.pbgfr.arg (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote in
    > news:slrncs3hmf.vj.hfrarg@nttvr2x3.pbgfr.arg:
    >
    >
    >>http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/03/msg03502.html

    >
    >
    > Well,... I went & read the page, but I still don't feel enlightened. The
    > contents make it clear that the Debian folks (and, seemingly everybody else
    > except for slackware) find something wrong in the new license and won't
    > include XFree86 in future releases.


    The new licens is more restrictive and seems to not be GPL compatible, which
    makes it a bit grey if you can link GPL stuff with XFree86 4.4+.
    Even slackware (current version, wht ever it is now) uses Xorg.

    http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php...SW&tbovrmode=3

    http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2004/6414.html (german)
    They talk about the new licens has some BSD licens like advertisment clause
    and how it can be illegal in GPL point of view.



    //Aho

  2. Re: xfree/xorg?

    "J.O. Aho" wrote in
    news:32ng2hF3p108uU1@individual.net:

    > Sorta Anonymous wrote:
    >> hfrarg@nttvr2x3.pbgfr.arg (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote in
    >> news:slrncs3hmf.vj.hfrarg@nttvr2x3.pbgfr.arg:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/03/msg03502.html

    >>
    >>
    >> Well,... I went & read the page, but I still don't feel enlightened.
    >> The contents make it clear that the Debian folks (and, seemingly
    >> everybody else except for slackware) find something wrong in the new
    >> license and won't include XFree86 in future releases.

    >
    > The new licens is more restrictive and seems to not be GPL compatible,
    > which makes it a bit grey if you can link GPL stuff with XFree86 4.4+.
    > Even slackware (current version, wht ever it is now) uses Xorg.
    >
    > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php...-26-NW-DT-SW&t
    > bovrmode=3
    >
    > http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2004/6414.html (german)
    > They talk about the new licens has some BSD licens like advertisment
    > clause and how it can be illegal in GPL point of view.
    >
    >
    >
    > //Aho
    >


    Okay, I think I understand that. What does the pending abandonment of
    XFree86 portend for the existing desktop manager environments such as KDE,
    GNOME, etc.? Will they have to undergo a major rewrite to accomodate
    shifting to Xorg, or do they already function properly within it?

  3. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Sorta Anonymous wrote:

    > Okay, I think I understand that. What does the pending abandonment of
    > XFree86 portend for the existing desktop manager environments such as KDE,
    > GNOME, etc.? Will they have to undergo a major rewrite to accomodate
    > shifting to Xorg, or do they already function properly within it?


    Xorg is a for of the XFree86 (4.3 I think) with some new code too, so today
    Xorg and XFree86 is driver compatible and both uses the xlib and it's
    extentions according to the standard, so no need to "port" anything, what
    works in XFree86 will work in Xorg and the other way too.


    //Aho

  4. Re: xfree/xorg?

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:26:22 +0100, J.O. Aho staggered into the Black
    Sun and said:
    > Sorta Anonymous wrote:
    >> What does the pending abandonment of XFree86 portend for the existing
    >> desktop manager environments such as KDE, GNOME, etc.? Will they have
    >> to undergo a major rewrite to accomodate shifting to Xorg, or do they
    >> already function properly within it?

    > Xorg is a fork of the XFree86 (4.3 I think) with some new code too, so
    > today Xorg and XFree86 is driver compatible and both uses the xlib and
    > its extensions according to the standard, so no need to "port"
    > anything. What works in XFree86 will work in Xorg and the other way
    > too.


    This is true now, but it might not be true in the future. The Xorg
    people are already working on new extensions to the X protocol--the
    Damage extension is the main one that I've heard about. Xorg's website
    doesn't seen to have any info on it, but it's of course available at
    http://freedesktop.org/Software/XDamage . The Damage extension is
    supposed to make X faster by essentially requiring fewer redraw events,
    which is a good thing.

    In a few years, after Damage is widespread because everyone's using
    Xorg, running X clients that require Damage may not work on older
    XFree86 servers without Damage. Damage is an *extension*, not a part of
    the core X protocol, so that shouldn't happen... but really dumb things
    happening are par for the course when you deal with software.

    --
    Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only light too dim for us to see

  5. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when Sorta Anonymous wrote:
    > Okay, I think I understand that. What does the pending abandonment
    > of XFree86 portend for the existing desktop manager environments
    > such as KDE, GNOME, etc.? Will they have to undergo a major rewrite
    > to accomodate shifting to Xorg, or do they already function properly
    > within it?


    X11R6 is the name of the _standard protocol_; XFree86 is merely one
    implementation of that protocol, with Xorg being another.

    Newer versions are expected to be interoperable with clients written
    for older versions of the protocol, and expectations have long been
    pretty high.

    GNOME and KDE are likely to make some significant modifications to
    parts of their code bases in order to take advantage of new features
    ("protocol extensions") in Xorg that were written specifically to help
    out GNOME and KDE projects.
    --
    (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
    http://linuxfinances.info/info/oses.html
    "Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
    the slaughterhouse." --- James Ostrowski

  6. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Dances With Crows wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:26:22 +0100, J.O. Aho staggered into the Black
    > Sun and said:
    >> Sorta Anonymous wrote:
    >>> What does the pending abandonment of XFree86 portend for the existing
    >>> desktop manager environments such as KDE, GNOME, etc.? Will they have
    >>> to undergo a major rewrite to accomodate shifting to Xorg, or do they
    >>> already function properly within it?

    >> Xorg is a fork of the XFree86 (4.3 I think) with some new code too, so
    >> today Xorg and XFree86 is driver compatible and both uses the xlib and
    >> its extensions according to the standard, so no need to "port"
    >> anything. What works in XFree86 will work in Xorg and the other way
    >> too.

    >
    > This is true now, but it might not be true in the future. The Xorg
    > people are already working on new extensions to the X protocol--the
    > Damage extension is the main one that I've heard about. Xorg's website
    > doesn't seen to have any info on it, but it's of course available at
    > http://freedesktop.org/Software/XDamage . The Damage extension is
    > supposed to make X faster by essentially requiring fewer redraw events,
    > which is a good thing.
    >
    > In a few years, after Damage is widespread because everyone's using
    > Xorg, running X clients that require Damage may not work on older
    > XFree86 servers without Damage. Damage is an *extension*, not a part of
    > the core X protocol, so that shouldn't happen... but really dumb things
    > happening are par for the course when you deal with software.


    Ah, but if use of the Damage extension is widespread, then it is quite
    likely that, if XFree86 persists, as a project, they will include this
    extension much as they have included other extensions.
    --
    select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'gmail.com';
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html
    "Although Unix is more reliable, NT may become more reliable with
    time" -- Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet
    Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, US Navy.

  7. Re: xfree/xorg?

    On 20 Dec 2004 21:37:25 GMT, Christopher Browne staggered into the Black
    Sun and said:
    > Dances With Crows wrote:

    [snip]
    >> In a few years, after Damage is widespread because everyone's using
    >> Xorg, running X clients that require Damage may not work on older
    >> XFree86 servers without Damage. Damage is an *extension*, not a part
    >> of the core X protocol, so that shouldn't happen... but really dumb
    >> things happening are par for the course when you deal with software.

    > Ah, but if use of the Damage extension is widespread, then it is quite
    > likely that, if XFree86 persists, as a project, they will include this
    > extension much as they have included other extensions.


    True. The XFree86 people could also pull a snit and say "Not Invented
    Here!" which has happened before with other projects. I can't think of
    an example involving XFree86, but look at esd/arts....

    --
    Murphy's revenge: The more reliable you make a system, the longer it
    will take you to figure out what's wrong when it breaks.
    --Sean Donelan, Mon, 26 Nov 2001
    There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

  8. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Oops! Dances With Crows was seen spray-painting on a wall:
    > On 20 Dec 2004 21:37:25 GMT, Christopher Browne staggered into the Black
    > Sun and said:
    >> Dances With Crows wrote:

    > [snip]
    >>> In a few years, after Damage is widespread because everyone's using
    >>> Xorg, running X clients that require Damage may not work on older
    >>> XFree86 servers without Damage. Damage is an *extension*, not a part
    >>> of the core X protocol, so that shouldn't happen... but really dumb
    >>> things happening are par for the course when you deal with software.

    >> Ah, but if use of the Damage extension is widespread, then it is quite
    >> likely that, if XFree86 persists, as a project, they will include this
    >> extension much as they have included other extensions.

    >
    > True. The XFree86 people could also pull a snit and say "Not
    > Invented Here!" which has happened before with other projects. I
    > can't think of an example involving XFree86, but look at
    > esd/arts....


    If they NIH things, that is liable to lead to them fading away
    completely.

    A large proportion of X developers appear to be not overly partisan,
    willing to work with either; what is manifestly clear is that The
    XFree86 Project is getting increasingly politicized, which will tend
    to push those that aren't Dawes partisans away...
    --
    (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/wp.html
    "Linux is only free if your time has no value." -- Jamie Zawinski

  9. Re: xfree/xorg?

    J.O. Aho wrote:

    > The new licens is more restrictive and seems to not be GPL compatible, which
    > makes it a bit grey if you can link GPL stuff with XFree86 4.4+.


    The license didn't change for libraries. The issue for GPL is almost(*)
    entirely limited to modifications within the X server tree.

    (*) except for slashdotters...

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  10. Re: xfree/xorg?

    J.O. Aho wrote:
    > Sorta Anonymous wrote:


    >> Okay, I think I understand that. What does the pending abandonment of
    >> XFree86 portend for the existing desktop manager environments such as KDE,
    >> GNOME, etc.? Will they have to undergo a major rewrite to accomodate
    >> shifting to Xorg, or do they already function properly within it?


    > Xorg is a for of the XFree86 (4.3 I think) with some new code too, so today


    essentially it's 4.4 (less about 2 weeks of changes).

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  11. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Christopher Browne wrote:

    > A large proportion of X developers appear to be not overly partisan,
    > willing to work with either; what is manifestly clear is that The
    > XFree86 Project is getting increasingly politicized, which will tend
    > to push those that aren't Dawes partisans away...


    Of course if you were speaking from experience, you'd have nothing to say.

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  12. Re: xfree/xorg?

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:01:50 -0000,
    Thomas Dickey , in
    <10sgb6eku3ts877@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
    >+ J.O. Aho wrote:
    >+
    >+ > The new licens is more restrictive and seems to not be GPL compatible, which
    >+ > makes it a bit grey if you can link GPL stuff with XFree86 4.4+.
    >+
    >+ The license didn't change for libraries. The issue for GPL is almost(*)
    >+ entirely limited to modifications within the X server tree.


    Until the next license change...can you guarantee that the license
    won't be changed again? today it's the main core, tomorrow the
    libraries.

    Oh, I know, you'll accuse me of sowing FUD. But as a user, what
    assurances have I been given that I'll continue to be able to us
    XFree86 with my favorite distribution *as*part*of*that*distribution*?

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  13. Re: xfree/xorg?

    I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

    fake name.

    > Until the next license change...can you guarantee that the license
    > won't be changed again? today it's the main core, tomorrow the
    > libraries.


    can you guarantee it won't - no, of course not.

    But people who post from fake names tend to be look like their opinions also
    are fake.

    bye.

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  14. Re: xfree/xorg?

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:17:08 -0000,
    Thomas Dickey , in
    <10so5mk9jgcvp93@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
    >+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
    >+
    >+ fake name.


    And who, pray-tell is "Thomas Dickey"? for all I know you grabbed a
    phone book and picked a name at random. For all I know, you're just a
    dog posting to Usenet...

    >+ > Until the next license change...can you guarantee that the license
    >+ > won't be changed again? today it's the main core, tomorrow the
    >+ > libraries.
    >+
    >+ can you guarantee it won't - no, of course not.


    And there in lies the rub, "Thomas Dickey". Especially when such
    license changes come by fiat, and not by careful consideration and
    consultation with interested parties.

    >+ But people who post from fake names tend to be look like their opinions also
    >+ are fake.


    Appeal to authority. Nice logical flaw. Judge the words, not the
    messanger.

    The fact remains that XFree86 has embarked on a path that has upset a
    number of its developers to such an extent that they've left for
    x.org.

    As I've indicated, the license change was the final straw for many
    folks. But it was only one straw of many that broke the camel's back.

    Nameless
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  15. Re: xfree/xorg?

    I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
    >>+ fake name.


    fake throughout.

    typical slashdotter.

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  16. Re: xfree/xorg?

    On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:14:41 -0000, Thomas Dickey staggered into the
    Black Sun and said:
    > I R A Darth Aggie wrote:


    Attributions FUBAR. Trying to fix:

    >>In 10so5mk9jgcvp93@corp.supernews.com , "Thomas Dickey" wrote:
    >>> [I R A Darth Aggie is using a] fake name.


    Yeah. So? Quality of posts is what counts. His e-mail looks valid
    when it's been through ROT13 (mine's valid when the capital letters are
    removed.) If you're that concerned about his identity, call him on it
    via his e-mail.

    >>> But people who post from fake names tend to be look like their
    >>> opinions also are fake.

    >>And who, pray-tell is "Thomas Dickey"? for all I know you grabbed a
    >>phone book and picked a name at random. For all I know, you're just a
    >>dog posting to Usenet...


    Usenet is not the freakin' New York Times/Boston Globe/
    Christian Science Monitor, eh? I personally use a pseudonym on the Net
    because my real name's more common than you'd expect and Google throws
    up a lot of irrelevant garbage when people search on it. I R A Darth
    Aggie may have a similar reason.

    >>Appeal to authority. Nice logical flaw. Judge the words, not the
    >>messanger.


    AOL!

    >>The fact remains that XFree86 has embarked on a path that has upset a
    >>number of its developers to such an extent that they've left for
    >>x.org. As I've indicated, the license change was the final straw for
    >>many folks. But it was only one straw of many that broke the camel's
    >>back.

    > fake throughout. typical slashdotter.


    Got a cite for why Darth Aggie's above paragraph is "fake throughout"?
    And your *opinions* look a lot better when you don't resort to
    namecalling.

    IIRC, the XFree86 team has had bad relations with many of the developers
    for a while. When X.org was formed, lots of the XFree86 developers
    moved to X.org for various reasons. One of those reasons was the
    license changes. Another was the promise that X.org would try to get
    rid of some old crap (move to autoconf instead of Imake) and move faster
    on introducing new code (like the XDamage extension). If you have
    information that contradicts those statements, post a URL and let the
    community judge it.

    FWIW, groups.google says that I R A Darth Aggie has posted roughly twice
    as many messages than "Thomas Dickey" in the last 4 years in the col.
    hierarchy. I R A Darth Aggie's first post in col.* is also a year
    before "Thomas Dickey"'s. Quantity and longevity do not imply quality,
    but they are worth considering.

    Feck. Time to go eat dinner and drink too much wine... have a merry St.
    Gulik's Day/Agnostica!

    --
    I have had to deal with kangaroos, donkeys, cows, wild pigs
    and some press leaks by former Vice President Cheney.
    --MegaHAL, trained on ASR
    There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

  17. Re: xfree/xorg?

    Dances With Crows wrote:
    > FWIW, groups.google says that I R A Darth Aggie has posted roughly twice


    google's counts vary by the way you phrase the query.

    (The beta drops more than half when you sort by date for instance - so the
    original counts are suspect).

    > as many messages than "Thomas Dickey" in the last 4 years in the col.
    > hierarchy. I R A Darth Aggie's first post in col.* is also a year
    > before "Thomas Dickey"'s. Quantity and longevity do not imply quality,


    I just did a check, and see a posting by me in 1994. (But I also recall that
    some mishap wiped out most of the postings I'd made according to deja-news
    some time ago, in 1997 or 1998 - about 90% of them - something like 1300
    articles).

    This might help your search:

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a8afb62bcd79b0
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  18. Re: xfree/xorg?

    On 24 Dec 2004 21:28:41 GMT,
    Dances With Crows , in
    wrote:

    >+ removed.) If you're that concerned about his identity, call him on it
    >+ via his e-mail.


    *shrugs* I'm not concerned with my identity, why should anyone else?
    and having survived a number of net.loons intact, I'd prefer that
    they actually have to work to find me in meat.space.

    >+ Usenet is not the freakin' New York Times


    I certainly hope we have higher standards! Hmmm? Jayson Blair is on
    line 1??

    >+ up a lot of irrelevant garbage when people search on it. I R A Darth
    >+ Aggie may have a similar reason.


    Actually, it's the opposite. I have a relatively unique surname. The
    nym has been thru a long evolution to reach its current state. And has
    a history and a life of it's own.

    >+ >>Appeal to authority. Nice logical flaw. Judge the words, not the
    >+ >>messanger.
    >+
    >+ AOL!


    D'oh! I have to wonder if "Thomas Dickey" is familar with "Student's
    t-test", one of the now standard statistical tests. The name Student
    was a nym for publishing anonymous treatises. According to TD's
    thesis, the t-test should be rejected *simply* because we don't know
    who did the work.

    >+ Got a cite for why Darth Aggie's above paragraph is "fake throughout"?
    >+ And your *opinions* look a lot better when you don't resort to
    >+ namecalling.


    If I can get them to namecalling, I'm already 2/3rds the way to
    "winning"...

    >+ Quantity and longevity do not imply quality,
    >+ but they are worth considering.


    I feel the need for a disclaimer: past performance is no indication of
    future performance.

    >+ Feck. Time to go eat dinner and drink too much wine... have a merry St.
    >+ Gulik's Day/Agnostica!


    Heh. Go have another round of both food and drink!

    Nameless
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2