On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 03:49, Leon Brooks wrote: > On Friday 21 March 2003 12:01 am, Jan Ciger wrote: > > 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 > > XFree86 and XFreer86? > > As I understand it, the pace (or lack of it) of incorporation of existing > patches is the main problem, so a fork would be less likely to contain said > fatal bugs, and a mroe responsive X server would result in NVidia submiting > more bugs in the first place. > > Also, `ten forks' is not a fair representation. All that's been discussed > AFAICT is a single fork. Maybe XFork? XCutlery (forked, and sharper than > before? :-) > > If they do fork, I most fervently hope that the fork has a different name, > (even if it is only `XLibre' or something like that) to avoid confusion. > Dropping the `86' would be good for both original and any fork, since it runs > on a lot more than x86 architecture and has done for a very long time. > > Cheers; Leon > <Place tongue in Cheek>
Dang I always thought that 86 stood for the last time they updated the drivers. </Remove tongue> James >
