Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
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
Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
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
Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
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. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I just saw the article on Slashdot - there is some effort for a fork underway already and the XFree86 people are not exactly happy about it. They even ejected the guy from the devel. team. I am not sure, whether the fork mentioned on Slashdot was related to Radeon or not, but before forking something, proper discussion with the XFree people should be in order. 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, especially if it breaks the drivers from Nvidia or ATI we are so dependent upon. It was hard enough to get e.g. Nvidia to support Linux and I do not think, they will support some forked version of XFree (not that they support the current one properly ..), if the compatibility is broken. Jan On Thursday 20 March 2003 16:50, Leon Brooks wrote: http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/diary.html?start=5 quote ATI submitted open source patches for the Radeon 9500 hardware about the time it was released. That was many many months ago. That patch still hasn't been integrated into XFree86 CVS, and as time goes on, I am thinking it is very likely not going to get integrated into 4.3.0 either. Just yesterday, ATI sent me 2 or 3 more patches that build upon the last patch they submitted which wasn't applied. How long is ATI going to continue submitting patches to XFree86.org that take 9 months to get into CVS, and then perhaps another 4-6 months to be available in an OS distribution? Quite frankly, if I were ATI, and submitting patches as frequently as they do, and the patches just sat there, I might start thinking twice about bothering in the future. /quote Maybe call a fork XFree2003 to make the point? (-: Cheers; Leon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+eeXun11XseNj94gRAldCAJ9vAQd3b1613XCU3HjLEHCx7kgTagCePmHV kGtaxc4muO7hwU7EPFLGjlg= =ATwq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 15:50, Leon Brooks wrote: http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/diary.html?start=5 quote ATI submitted open source patches for the Radeon 9500 hardware about the time it was released. That was many many months ago. That patch still hasn't been integrated into XFree86 CVS, and as time goes on, I am thinking it is very likely not going to get integrated into 4.3.0 either. Just yesterday, ATI sent me 2 or 3 more patches that build upon the last patch they submitted which wasn't applied. How long is ATI going to continue submitting patches to XFree86.org that take 9 months to get into CVS, and then perhaps another 4-6 months to be available in an OS distribution? Quite frankly, if I were ATI, and submitting patches as frequently as they do, and the patches just sat there, I might start thinking twice about bothering in the future. /quote Maybe call a fork XFree2003 to make the point? (-: Cheers; Leon Well, keithp left the XFree project because he tried to fork it...allegedly...why don't you submit these patches directly to the MDK X maintainer, though? We have X patches that aren't in the official release already, I think, so why can't we include these? -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well, keithp left the XFree project because he tried to fork it...allegedly...why don't you submit these patches directly to the MDK X maintainer, though? We have X patches that aren't in the official release already, I think, so why can't we include these? Eh, wrong person I think. Leon is not the author of the diary entry :-) Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+efOSn11XseNj94gRAlI5AJ9tsMjfZ9/RjPu0U65MamqisNKLmACfbUS7 0gEoOZI6B6+B+vC2NNmBMOM= =2pj0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Here's why no Radeon 9500 support in 9.1
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 17:00, Jan Ciger wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well, keithp left the XFree project because he tried to fork it...allegedly...why don't you submit these patches directly to the MDK X maintainer, though? We have X patches that aren't in the official release already, I think, so why can't we include these? Eh, wrong person I think. Leon is not the author of the diary entry :-) Ah yeah, sorry, I misread the point where it went from the quoting to Leon :) -- adamw
