Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> from a
>> pure resource management perspective, it would seem the best solution is
>> to remove your team's OpenGL from Solaris altogether and ship Mesa on both
>> platforms.
+1__#0
>> This would also give customers the same OpenGL inte
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> from a
> pure resource management perspective, it would seem the best solution is
> to remove your team's OpenGL from Solaris altogether and ship Mesa on both
> platforms. This would also give customers the same OpenGL interfaces on
> both platforms, though without hardw
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> For those on indiana-discuss, but not xwin-discuss, it's just been pointed
> out to me that you've only seen one side of this thread, since indiana-discuss
> discards messages from non-subscribers, while some of the people responding
> are subscribed to and participating
For those on indiana-discuss, but not xwin-discuss, it's just been pointed
out to me that you've only seen one side of this thread, since indiana-discuss
discards messages from non-subscribers, while some of the people responding
are subscribed to and participating in this discussion via xwin-discu
Linda Fellingham wrote:
> Alan,
>
> We could really use your help to make the case for more resource. The
> SPARC graphics group is very small (5) and struggling to keep up with
> the sustaining burden as well as trying to do the x.org development.
That's the exact size the X team has been at fo
Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Wow, so closed source is such a sin now that it would be worth running
> multiple orders of magnitude slower to be open source? I think you need
> to get off your high horse.
Project Indiana is all about open source, so yes, closed source is against
the entire purpose of the
In March your team submitted the LSARC fasttrack for OpenGL 2.0 for
Xsun/SPARC. LSARC derailed it, since it was not obvious why this
was being done first for the EOL'ed Xsun and not the preferred Xorg.
("Derailed" is not "denied", it's just "this isn't so obvious and
non-controversial that it can
We all have limited resources - what other work would you like us to
delay to work on DPA instead? The DMX work your team requested?
The other issues raised in porting XVR-2500 to Xorg?
You've already spent your "get out of jail free card" by releasing
OpenGL 2.0 support without the Xorg support
This was brought up at our X/DDX groups meeting a couple weeks ago, and
once we got over the initial shock that anyone besides DPS was using DPA
(seriously? we had no idea), the discussion was that Xorg already must
have some sort of interface you should be using instead of porting DPA
to it - the
> Your personal grudge is what is off-topic.
I do not believe it is a personal grudge. His observation comes
through easily enough from reading your posts. Take, for example, some
of your posts where you clearly take the high ground for yourself with
'In my experience...'
>
> Your implication tha
10 matches
Mail list logo
