Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> Not competitors to X.Org, but competitors to their company. If they
> improve X.Org, they also improve the software stack of their
> competitors. Also, if they have a good market share, a common software
> stack (like X.Org) makes it easier for their customers to
Matt Dew writes:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen
> wrote:
[...]
>> I can see some reasons why companies would not want to contribute and
>> also not want to say why:
>>
>> - They wish X.Org would just go away, because then they think they'll
>> have less competition.
Thanks a lot for this update and the work in general. I know it was very
difficult for me to get involved, and even now I'm only comfortable in a few
corners of X11. In addition to making it easier for new contributors, this
work will make it easier for existing contributors to expand their in
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen
wrote:
> Luc Verhaegen writes:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:56:32PM -0700, Matt Dew wrote:
>>> This I'm curious about. Are there more companies that feel it's
>>> too-hard/not-worth-while for companies to contribute stuff to Xorg?
>>>
As many of you know, with some guidance from Alan, Gaetan and I have
been quietly slugging through converting the in-tree documentation to
docbook/xml. With the goal of having attractive, usable documentation
that's easy to edit and generate html,pdf,ps and text, with an
emphasis on consistency ac
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The lack of documentation for various aspects of the server doesn't help
> either. I found X development far more intimidating than getting
> involved in the kernel.
That is something we know we've been lacking for a long time, and have been
working to correct. So far
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:23:38PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > but simply being more enthusiastic about accepting contributions doesn't
> > seem like a great plan (compare the code quality of nouveau, intel and
> > radeon to that of some of the out of tree drivers, for instance)
>
> I think that
> but simply being more enthusiastic about accepting contributions doesn't
> seem like a great plan (compare the code quality of nouveau, intel and
> radeon to that of some of the out of tree drivers, for instance)
I think that is a little naïve. There is a difference between vendors
attempting
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:56:32PM -0700, Matt Dew wrote:
> This I'm curious about. Are there more companies that feel it's
> too-hard/not-worth-while for companies to contribute stuff to Xorg?
> I know the linux kernel has this issue, but is X's contribution
> difficulty larger?
I think X face
Luc Verhaegen writes:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:56:32PM -0700, Matt Dew wrote:
>> This I'm curious about. Are there more companies that feel it's
>> too-hard/not-worth-while for companies to contribute stuff to Xorg?
>> I know the linux kernel has this issue, but is X's contribution
>> diffi
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:56:32PM -0700, Matt Dew wrote:
> > But you also might want to consider that i was at a hardware vendor two
> > weeks ago, and i had to listen to their main engineer calling
> > contributing directly to X a waste of time, and that they rather fix
> > the versions their cus
Matt,
I think what you are asking is: "is the Microsoft FUD working?"
The answer is: "yes".
Should we roll over and play dead? No, not me.
Freedom, as in "free range",
Pat
---
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Matt Dew wrote:
> This I'm curious about. Are there more companies that feel
> But you also might want to consider that i was at a hardware vendor two
> weeks ago, and i had to listen to their main engineer calling
> contributing directly to X a waste of time, and that they rather fix
> the versions their customers ship, and hand the patches to their
> customers directly, n
13 matches
Mail list logo
