-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I just saw the article on Slashdot - there is some effort for a fork underway already and the XFree86 people are not exactly happy about it. They even ejected the guy from the devel. team.
I am not sure, whether the fork mentioned on Slashdot was related to Radeon or not, but before forking something, proper discussion with the XFree people should be in order. It is a free software, but having ten incompatible versions of XFree or ten versions with ten different fatal bugs is not a nice outlook, especially if it breaks the drivers from Nvidia or ATI we are so dependent upon. It was hard enough to get e.g. Nvidia to support Linux and I do not think, they will support some forked version of XFree (not that they support the current one properly ..), if the compatibility is broken. Jan On Thursday 20 March 2003 16:50, Leon Brooks wrote: > http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/diary.html?start=5 > > <quote> > ATI submitted open source patches for the Radeon 9500 hardware about the > time it was released. That was many many months ago. That patch still > hasn't been integrated into XFree86 CVS, and as time goes on, I am thinking > it is very likely not going to get integrated into 4.3.0 either. Just > yesterday, ATI sent me 2 or 3 more patches that build upon the last patch > they submitted which wasn't applied. How long is ATI going to continue > submitting patches to XFree86.org that take 9 months to get into CVS, and > then perhaps another 4-6 months to be available in an OS distribution? > Quite frankly, if I were ATI, and submitting patches as frequently as they > do, and the patches just sat there, I might start thinking twice about > bothering in the future. </quote> > > Maybe call a fork XFree2003 to make the point? (-: > > Cheers; Leon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+eeXun11XseNj94gRAldCAJ9vAQd3b1613XCU3HjLEHCx7kgTagCePmHV kGtaxc4muO7hwU7EPFLGjlg= =ATwq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
