>Absolutely nothing says that both can't co-exist. If the default >tools try to allow configuration of everything, even some >hardware specific things, they can try where possible and >feasible to generalize these things, or in cases where that isn't >possible, they can provide hardware specific customization.
Your example is exactly as I was suggesting, I just worded it badly. Try to put things in a generalized GUI but don't be too concerned about odd features that don't fit. Feature Foo that only applies to an odd usage case doesn't need to clutter the generalized GUI. As long as there is ability for someone to extend it in a device specific manner all will be well in the world. >It depends on who writes the tool, what their objectives are, and >what they're willing to accept into their project, be it hardware >generic or hardware specific. Anyone can re-implement the whole thing in a different manner as you stated, but wouldn't it be nice if the de-facto one provided by XFree was the most flexible. I know I'd like a "make install" to have all the updated drivers and configuration tools without having to look for updated config tools from other sources. >That sounds perfectly fine. And "vendor" in this sense could >mean anything from "open source project (including XFree86)" to >"OS vendor" to "video hardware vendor". Yes exactly. Vendor is a misleading word. Whoever is producing the driver or config tools is the vendor. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
