Re: xorg & xfree86
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 17:22 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > xfree86 changed its licence to something not very free, so what > happened is that xorg foundation took the last remaining > freely-licenced xfree86 code and renamed it xorg, then started working > on that. I think the actual license change simply was the final straw. See the Wikipedia article about XFree86, especially the part about "dissent within the project". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86 It really nice to see how development of X has flourished since the split from XFree86. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: xorg & xfree86
John L Fjellstad wrote: "Tshepang Lekhonkhobe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: xfree86 changed its licence to something not very free, so what happened is that xorg foundation took the last remaining freely-licenced xfree86 code and renamed it xorg, then started working on that. Loads of other distros use xorg now, and I actually wonder who's using xfree86, for new development today. I think even the *BSD people went to Xorg indeed, a long time ago -- Bill -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg & xfree86
"Tshepang Lekhonkhobe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > xfree86 changed its licence to something not very free, so what > happened is that xorg foundation took the last remaining > freely-licenced xfree86 code and renamed it xorg, then started working > on that. Loads of other distros use xorg now, and I actually wonder > who's using xfree86, for new development today. I think even the *BSD people went to Xorg -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg & xfree86
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Raghu Kodali wrote: > I am not very clear about the differences between xorg & xfree86. Why > did we move from xfree86 in sarge to xorg in Etch? I tried to google it. > I could get only individual information but not a comparision. License issues. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFq6jZu4tRirKTPYwRAmCaAJsGQNnYViUQ24LI804ijlxWGcgHwgCdGx00 vfUaG/p40oVIpqRRC+ZTE3M= =6AYF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg & xfree86
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:59:22 +0530 Raghu Kodali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not very clear about the differences between xorg & xfree86. Why > did we move from xfree86 in sarge to xorg in Etch? I tried to google > it. I could get only individual information but not a comparision. Licence issues: http://wiki.debian.org/XStrikeForce/FAQ#xfree86license You might want to read the whole page. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg & xfree86
On 1/15/07, Raghu Kodali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am not very clear about the differences between xorg & xfree86. Why did we move from xfree86 in sarge to xorg in Etch? I tried to google it. I could get only individual information but not a comparision. xfree86 changed its licence to something not very free, so what happened is that xorg foundation took the last remaining freely-licenced xfree86 code and renamed it xorg, then started working on that. Loads of other distros use xorg now, and I actually wonder who's using xfree86, for new development today. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xorg & xfree86
I am not very clear about the differences between xorg & xfree86. Why did we move from xfree86 in sarge to xorg in Etch? I tried to google it. I could get only individual information but not a comparision. Thanks Raghu It is better to throw windows out of the computer than throwing the computer out of the window. (Copied from a mailing list) Raghu Kodali www.raghukodali.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 07:06:22PM +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 16:24:04 -, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > > > for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without > > > being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a > > > "lie" in what he writes. > > > > The lie was this: stating that it was not allowed to happen. > > There is no justification for calling someone a liar unless you can > prove that they intentionally spread false information. More precisely ...unless you can prove that they intentionally spread information that they know to be false. This is very hard to prove, and an accuser's knowing for a fact that a statement is false has nothing to do with proving that the putative liar did not believe it to be true. In general, almost nobody is a liar because they invariably believe their own lie, and they fail the test for knowing that the statement is false. > > > Anytime the topic came up, invariably it was from people who were not > > going to do the work, but wanted someone else to do it for them. > > The wikipedia page on XFree86 certainly suggests that people willing to > contribute were denied CVS access. If you think you know better what > really happened then you should maybe correct this article and cite > sources to back you up. I have read horror stories about outsiders trying to correct information on wikipedia. I don't know whether they are true, but the stories seem to have more than mere truthiness. But it hardly matters. See above about proving someone is a liar. There does seem to be an internal controversy within the Xwindow developer community. How else can one explain the existence of a fork? Luckily, there seem to be enough real developers in that community to support two prongs of an Xwindows fork, maybe more. The two camps can compete for talent from the same pool. Perhaps the competition will cause to pool to grow. I persist in my belief that issues of changes in the license had something to do with the fork happening. It was not merely a spat over a design decision where both sides had ego involvement. And, certainly not a spat in which one side was *right* and the other side *wrong*. All this has become much to heated for me to be interested in finding supporting evidence for my position out there on the web, so don't bother challenging my persistent belief. If I found such, wouldn't the response be, 'Yes, but that's not the real reason.' ? Will historians of technology write tomes on this issue? I wonder. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 16:24:04 -, Thomas Dickey wrote: >> Florian Kulzer wrote: >> >> > for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without >> > being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a >> > "lie" in what he writes. >> >> The lie was this: stating that it was not allowed to happen. > There is no justification for calling someone a liar unless you can > prove that they intentionally spread false information. hmm - the alternative is to prove that he's stupid and spreading other people's false information. Take your pick. >> Anytime the topic came up, invariably it was from people who were not >> going to do the work, but wanted someone else to do it for them. > The wikipedia page on XFree86 certainly suggests that people willing to don't use that as a reference - parts of it are true, but only part. Furthermore, as a reference for this issue, it doesn't address it. > contribute were denied CVS access. If you think you know better what > really happened then you should maybe correct this article and cite > sources to back you up. shrug: the parts that are untrue can easily be checked on mailing list archives. The people who wrote the wikipedia article don't care for that - the _primary_ source of information for appears to be slashdot. > The point of my last mail was that nothing in Kevin's messages in this > thread justifies your borderline rude behavior. He is not responsible > for whatever grudges you have against other people who may or may not > have promised to contribute to XFree86. He's free to followup by actually reporting facts rather than lies. (Given the nature of this mailing list, I'm assuming someone will point out that this is not his _responsibility_). bye -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 16:24:04 -, Thomas Dickey wrote: > Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without > > being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a > > "lie" in what he writes. > > The lie was this: stating that it was not allowed to happen. There is no justification for calling someone a liar unless you can prove that they intentionally spread false information. > Anytime the topic came up, invariably it was from people who were not > going to do the work, but wanted someone else to do it for them. The wikipedia page on XFree86 certainly suggests that people willing to contribute were denied CVS access. If you think you know better what really happened then you should maybe correct this article and cite sources to back you up. The point of my last mail was that nothing in Kevin's messages in this thread justifies your borderline rude behavior. He is not responsible for whatever grudges you have against other people who may or may not have promised to contribute to XFree86. -- Regards, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without > being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a > "lie" in what he writes. The lie was this: stating that it was not allowed to happen. Anytime the topic came up, invariably it was from people who were not going to do the work, but wanted someone else to do it for them. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:22:24 -, Thomas Dickey wrote: > Kevin Mark wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:03:01PM +, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >> Kevin Mark wrote: > >> > One of the reasons why there was not a modularized source tree in > >> > XFree86 was that it was not allowed to happen. No? So XFree86 never > >> > could have it, while Xorg now does. And this lead to XFree86 development > >> > being harder than Xorg. To me this is a differnce, a major difference, > >> > regardless which version of Xorg has it. > > >> oh. Then we'll expect to see some significant X development from _you_ in > >> the near future, demonstrating that your comment was informed. > > > Hehe. Only on a free software list could someone ask an individual > > to backup their opinion by producing improvements to a mammoth project > > like Xorg/Freedesktop :-) The best I can do is send some pennies to the X = > > strike > > not in the least. I noted your comment, and could only interpret it in one of > two ways (a lie such as we often see on slashdot, or a promise that since now > that things were being done the way you wanted, you'd start to produce > something). > > looking forward to your contribution... I think there is a perfectly innocent interpretation of the "To me this is a difference, a major difference, ..." statement in the context of the discussion: Kevin is simply justifying why he chose to emphasize the modularization. That is how I understood this sentence when I first read it. It seems important to him that the modular structure makes it easier for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a "lie" in what he writes. -- Regards, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:03:01PM +, Thomas Dickey wrote: >> Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > One of the reasons why there was not a modularized source tree in >> > XFree86 was that it was not allowed to happen. No? So XFree86 never >> > could have it, while Xorg now does. And this lead to XFree86 development >> > being harder than Xorg. To me this is a differnce, a major difference, >> > regardless which version of Xorg has it. >> oh. Then we'll expect to see some significant X development from _you_ in >> the near future, demonstrating that your comment was informed. > Hehe. Only on a free software list could someone ask an individual > to backup their opinion by producing improvements to a mammoth project > like Xorg/Freedesktop :-) The best I can do is send some pennies to the X = > strike not in the least. I noted your comment, and could only interpret it in one of two ways (a lie such as we often see on slashdot, or a promise that since now that things were being done the way you wanted, you'd start to produce something). looking forward to your contribution... -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:03:01PM +, Thomas Dickey wrote: > Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One of the reasons why there was not a modularized source tree in > > XFree86 was that it was not allowed to happen. No? So XFree86 never > > could have it, while Xorg now does. And this lead to XFree86 development > > being harder than Xorg. To me this is a differnce, a major difference, > > regardless which version of Xorg has it. > > oh. Then we'll expect to see some significant X development from _you_ in > the near future, demonstrating that your comment was informed. Hehe. Only on a free software list could someone ask an individual to backup their opinion by producing improvements to a mammoth project like Xorg/Freedesktop :-) The best I can do is send some pennies to the X strike force. :=) Arent you involved with Xterm? Can I conclude that _you_ dont see any benefit in your work. cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:04:28PM +0100, Mathias Brodala wrote: > Hello Kevin. > > Kevin Mark, 05.11.2006 19:03: > >> That means: if you want a monolithic X-server, you can have one with Xorg > >> too. > > > > So its possible to have a monolithic Xorg X server. Debian does not package > > one. Who does? > > How about Debian[0]? But that was the 6.8. Which was after the XFree86 that shipped with Sarge when Xorg was being transitioned to the current modularized form which is what will be shipped with Etch. We dont do that now. I was asking who now ships one now? > > (I would have accepted your statement if was the following: > Kevin Mark, 05.11.2006 03:08: > > One of the major differences between XFree86 and [the current] Xorg is the > > use of modularized source. > ) My point was that XFree86 is not modularized because the project did not and will not allow that. It was only possible with the birth of a new project that allowed that and had that goal in mind: xorg. Cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the reasons why there was not a modularized source tree in > XFree86 was that it was not allowed to happen. No? So XFree86 never > could have it, while Xorg now does. And this lead to XFree86 development > being harder than Xorg. To me this is a differnce, a major difference, > regardless which version of Xorg has it. oh. Then we'll expect to see some significant X development from _you_ in the near future, demonstrating that your comment was informed. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
Hello Kevin. Kevin Mark, 05.11.2006 19:03: >> That means: if you want a monolithic X-server, you can have one with Xorg >> too. > > So its possible to have a monolithic Xorg X server. Debian does not package > one. Who does? How about Debian[0]? (I would have accepted your statement if was the following: Kevin Mark, 05.11.2006 03:08: > One of the major differences between XFree86 and [the current] Xorg is the > use of modularized source. ) Regards, Mathias [0] http://snapshot.debian.net/package/xorg-x11 -- debian/rules signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:13:59AM +0100, Mathias Brodala wrote: > Hello Kevin. > > Kevin Mark, 05.11.2006 03:08: > > One of the major differences between XFree86 and Xorg is the use of > > modularized source. > > Nope. Huh? > That???s the difference between Release 6.9 and 7.0 and has nothing to > do with differences between XFree86 and Xorg. One of the reasons why there was not a modularized source tree in XFree86 was that it was not allowed to happen. No? So XFree86 never could have it, while Xorg now does. And this lead to XFree86 development being harder than Xorg. To me this is a differnce, a major difference, regardless which version of Xorg has it. > (Although the former doesn???t have a modularized tree.) Did I not say that? Does XFree86 have a modularized source tree? No. Does Xorg 6.9 have a modularized source tree? No. Does Xorg 7.0+ have a modularized source tree? Yes. > > That means: if you want a monolithic X-server, you can have one with Xorg too. So its possible to have a monolithic Xorg X server. Debian does not package one. Who does? Kevin -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
Hello Kevin. Kevin Mark, 05.11.2006 03:08: > One of the major differences between XFree86 and Xorg is the use of > modularized source. Nope. That’s the difference between Release 6.9 and 7.0 and has nothing to do with differences between XFree86 and Xorg. (Although the former doesn’t have a modularized tree.) That means: if you want a monolithic X-server, you can have one with Xorg too. Regards, Mathias -- debian/rules signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 05:00:28PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:38:36PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote: > > Hey there. What X system does my recent (installed yesterday ) debian etch > > system use? Isn't there adifference between xfree86 and xorg? The docs I > > found on the debian site are for xfree86 but my system seems to have X11 / > > xorg stuff on it? Sort me out if I'm clueless. > > Sarge uses xfree86. Etch uses xorg. As I understand it, there was a change > in the license of xfree86 after release of Sarge. That change was not > acceptable according to DFSG. So, people who take such things seriously, > and have the talent to do something about it, have forked x-windows. > (I care, but don't have the talent.) > One of the major differences between XFree86 and Xorg is the use of modularized source. This allows each part of the server to worked on individually and by default easier and faster. There are now individual files for the various video cards and input devices. Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
ChadDavis wrote: Hey there. What X system does my recent (installed yesterday ) debian etch system use? Isn't there adifference between xfree86 and xorg? The docs I found on the debian site are for xfree86 but my system seems to have X11 / xorg stuff on it? Sort me out if I'm clueless. Etch uses xorg, but you may encounter artifacts of xfree86, this being the tail-end of a transition period. The primary difference which I have noticed is a significant simplification of the keyboard layout scheme; xorg is cleaner and easier to modify than is xfree86. But beware! Until a month or so ago, you could mess up your system on a royal scale by making changes to xfree86 even though xorg is in use. But with each release, the xfree86 code is being removed. If you are a Dvorak user, xorg now provides the "classic" Dvorak layout, as well as the "modified" Dvorak layout. The classic layout is the original scheme, which was devised by Dvorak about 1936; the modified layout is a severely-compromised scheme which was standardized by ANSI about 1981. (It is appears that the members of the ANSI committee were not touch typists, or else were coerced; hence, their failure to standardize the original Dvorak layout.) The classic Dvorak layout has been available in Debian for a year or two for the virtual console. RLH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:38:36PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote: > Hey there. What X system does my recent (installed yesterday ) debian > etch > system use? xorg >Isn't there adifference between xfree86 and xorg? yes. i think xorg is a fork of xf86. try google. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xorg , xfree86?
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:38:36PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote: > Hey there. What X system does my recent (installed yesterday ) debian etch > system use? Isn't there adifference between xfree86 and xorg? The docs I > found on the debian site are for xfree86 but my system seems to have X11 / > xorg stuff on it? Sort me out if I'm clueless. Sarge uses xfree86. Etch uses xorg. As I understand it, there was a change in the license of xfree86 after release of Sarge. That change was not acceptable according to DFSG. So, people who take such things seriously, and have the talent to do something about it, have forked x-windows. (I care, but don't have the talent.) -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xorg , xfree86?
Hey there. What X system does my recent (installed yesterday ) debian etch system use? Isn't there adifference between xfree86 and xorg? The docs I found on the debian site are for xfree86 but my system seems to have X11 / xorg stuff on it? Sort me out if I'm clueless. Respect.
