> From: Sergio Brandano [mailto:sb@dcs.qmw.ac.uk] > > Was X version 4 supposed to be that magic next step, The magic here is yours only. > where companies like ATi and Matrox could make > their own drivers? Was X version 4 supposed to have Could and can. Doesn't mean they will, even if they should. In fact, they could make their own servers before - they didn't because they wanted to make them proprietary and few people would accept a proprietary server. > a mechanism for which these drivers could be added > modularly with no need to hack the main code? Was And it has. It is called drivers. Before X had no drivers, just monolithic servers. > that one of the reasons why we could not have a free > version of X Version 4? If so, why is that we are We have a free version of XFree. In fact, XFree is free, that's where it got its name. Now the X reference implementation (because X itself is just the specs) at a time was to become proprietary, but they reversed it (mainly because XFree devs and users cried out) and the X Reference Implementations remain free up to now. What people expected is that we would have some extra proprietary drivers in addition to the free ones. But AFAIK the only vendor doing proprietary X drivers is NVidia, and then only for the i386 architecture. Thanks God, because I'd rather have everything GPL'd, no more free riders. > now having this problem in running an ATi driver? Because you and me are too lazy to debug and improve the existing driver, and we don't step up to ATi and demand they create one or fix the existing one. Perhaps because no one has yet convinced ATi they could sell more boards if there was a good free driver for them. --_ / \ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +55 (11) 246 96 07 resl \ / Amdocs Brasil Ltda, Sao Paulo +55 (11) 3040 8913 coml X http://terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ ; mailto:leandrod@amdocs.com / \ Campanha fita ASCII, contra correio HTML BRASIL
Attachment:
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra (E-mail).vcf
Description: Binary data