Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:22:24 -0000, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Kevin Mark wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:03:01PM +0000, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >> Kevin Mark wrote:
> >> > One of the reasons why there was not a modularized source tree in
> >> > XFree86 was that it was not allowed to happen. No? So XFree86 never
> >> > could have it, while Xorg now does. And this lead to XFree86 development
> >> > being harder than Xorg. To me this is a differnce, a major difference,
> >> > regardless which version of Xorg has it.
>
> >> oh. Then we'll expect to see some significant X development from _you_ in
> >> the near future, demonstrating that your comment was informed.
>
> > Hehe. Only on a free software list could someone ask an individual
> > to backup their opinion by producing improvements to a mammoth project
> > like Xorg/Freedesktop :-) The best I can do is send some pennies to the X =
> > strike
>
> not in the least. I noted your comment, and could only interpret it in one of
> two ways (a lie such as we often see on slashdot, or a promise that since now
> that things were being done the way you wanted, you'd start to produce
> something).
>
> looking forward to your contribution...
I think there is a perfectly innocent interpretation of the "To me this
is a difference, a major difference, ..." statement in the context of
the discussion: Kevin is simply justifying why he chose to emphasize the
modularization. That is how I understood this sentence when I first read
it. It seems important to him that the modular structure makes it easier
for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without
being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a
"lie" in what he writes.
--
Regards,
Florian
Reply to: