Hi Luc, On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > Patrick, there are a few misconceptions here.
Probably you are right. However I'm not involved in openchrome or unichrome development, so I can just say what I see from a user perspective. > When the openchrome fork happened, it was deemed upstream that the only > acceptable solution was that openchrome maintained the upstream via > driver. Who do you mean by upstream in this case? And why did they deem so? > I wanted -via to disappear there and then already, but this was > not deemed an acceptable solution. And be replace by -unichrome or -openchrome or what? :) > Also, -unichrome is not dead. I am just overloaded with work on > -radeonhd. Okay I see. But you must commit that 2 years+ not having a release makes it look like this for the user. BTW. where is the sense in having two indepent drivers anyway? Why not join efforts with the openchrome project and develop a good driver together with them? For users its only irritating to have 2+ drivers and never really know which one they can use. Besides that it makes decision harder for distributors who need to choose a driver, too. And their choice has a lot more weight then one might see, because users would like to apt-get or zappy or whatelese their drivers instead of downloading svn trunks or git repositories. :) Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
