Subject: Re: [DEFINITELY OT] XFree (Re: Text boxes in Linux)
From: Justin Bradford (justin@ukans.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2000 - 21:19:14 CST
> The RPM needed some library which
> Mandrake doesn't have, so I suppose it's a SuSE RPM. The tarball is a binary
> tarball. How can I compile it for the Mandrake setup if I can't get the source?
> What's the point of a free OS if I can't get the source for the X server?
That's not XFree's fault. That's because the video card manufacturer
wouldn't open specs, most likely. Binary servers/libraries for X usually
mean that someone signed an NDA to support the card. Precision Insight use
to do that for Red Hat (they supported all those laptop chipsets before
the company ok'd the source release). SuSE does the same thing.
Usually, the video card companies release source later, and this is one of
the reasons XFree uses semi-closed development (or so it's claimed). The
XFree project leaders believe video card companies will release specs and
source to the limited environment of XFree before they will to the world
in general. I doubt it's as much of an issue anymore, since hardware
companies seem willing to open specs/develop their own drivers now.
Of course, forking XFree is a _huge_ undertaking. There are lots of XFree
developers, including many full-time people supported by various Linux
companies. You'd have to convince a lot of people that the totally open
version is a much better way to go. I noticed the person suggesting this
was from RedHat, however, who could pull it off. I'd hate to see lots of
wasted parallel development, which I would expect since SuSE is a big
supporter of the current XFree project. I imagine we would be better off
getting XFree to open up more, or supporting some entirely new, better
designed windowing system (ala Berlin). Emulate the XFree4 driver module
interface, though, and port GDK (or Xlib if you're feeling really
ambitious) to it.
Justin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 21:19:16 CST