This time James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> becomes daring and writes:
> 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. You mean it doesn't mean that? damn! :) Vox -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
