On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 14:27 +0300, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote:
> When someone constructs a protocol that you can manipulate it for adding and > removing pieces as much as you want, without use the core protocol, then in my > opinion is shameless abuse. X11R1 shipped with extensions, you know. Two of them, in fact. The extension mechanism is the _only_ reason X survived past X11R5. Try running a modern desktop without XC-MISC sometime. > The whole point to create a consistent protocol is the life time that it will > last. Right now I don't see any consistency between X applications that I'm > building today with the ones we had in the last decade. I cannot run both in > the same X server. I even doubt I can use today's X app in the upcoming 2 or > 3 years server. A few Fedora releases ago, when we were wrangling about Firefox trademark issues, I decided - in the name of lols - to go dig out a copy of redbaron (a non-free browser Red Hat shipped for approximately one release) and see how well it still worked. Took a bit of work to build a chroot for it with libc5 and the relevant X libs, but having done that it worked fine on a Fedora X server. http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/distributions/redhat/4.2/i386/RedHat/RPMS/redbaron-3.1-1.i386.rpm So, uh. I'm very sorry if your X server can't run a 14-year-old Xt app, but mine doesn't seem to have any problem with it. - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
