Slashdot Mirror

According to Xouvert's home page a release is scheduled for April 1, 2004. Of course that could be some kind of april fool's joke....

No, from what I'm told, the main reason to fork is the attitude taken by some members of the XFree Core Team. As you said, its their code and they can do what they want but the forking has already happened:

Xouvert
Freedesktop
Cygwin X

Personally I don't see myself ever using XFree 4.4 and am looking forward to a complete release of fd.o. When that happens, I'll likely be moving everything I can off XFree but that's just me.

If you think this is flamebait, visit the projects' websites and take a convince yourself of the facts.

Nope. According to the Xouvert FAQ it's a "branch" of XFree86. They specifically state that they're maintaining code and license compatibility with XFree86. So, doesn't that mean that Xouvert would suffer from the same licensing problems?

XFree86 is no longer relevant; XFree86.org can go jump off a bridge for all I care. Now there is Xouvert and also Keith Packard's KDrive server at freedesktop.org. Why are they trying to force a license change when they should be fighting for the right to still even exist? If they don't do something, people are going to drop XFree86 in droves and move to freedesktop.org's server for the eye candy alone. As soon as the driver support is there, XFree86 is gone.

"If XFree86 doesn't back out, it could spell doom for the project as a whole,..."

Hmmm...do I smell Xouvert? or perhaps freedesktop ?
Regards,
Steve

The answer to his question is here


1.11) What is Keith Packards involvement with Xouvert?

Keith Packard is a champion of the move to open XFree86, and supports Xouvert's efforts in that regard. Keith's project is freedesktop.org, and he's expressed interest in bundling with Xouvert's results.


So Keith is right there in the middle of it all.

And according to the Xouvert FAQ, it is not a fork, but more of a public development branch.

I remember back in the day Xfree86 needed to be a company to trademark the term "Xfree86" so they created this weird organization with a constitution and all. There was the "board" and there was the "core". Later another set was added, people who had commit access to CVS, but weren't on the core. At the bottom there were regular joe developers.

The thing is that no one really knew what the core did except that it had a private email list. Even the people on the core didn't know. (I'm not joking).

Historically, XFree86 has had closed-style, "Cathedral", developement. If you wanted to look at the development code or read the developers emails, you had to apply. Then they opened up the CVS repository to the world. Then last year they openned up all the development email and dissolved the core group.

It's good to see times change, and that they have moved to a more open, "Bazaar" style approach. It's a sign that the project is becoming more open and responsive to developers. The only better outcome would be if Xouvert were involved in the new X.org, but you can't have everything. I think this is a good thing for everyone.

Indeed. Hopefully this will remove the roadblocks which have characterized the slow development of XFree86, and fostered the creation of projects like Xouvert.

However, will this affect XFree86 4.4? In that vein, how will the removal of this mysterious core team, blamed for the glacial pace of XFree86 advancement, affect the development of this project?

For anyone that doesn't know:
The Xouvert Project
has been set up to help develop experimental extensions to X in an open way, using Free Software.
(It's not a competing X implementation, it is assistance).
(Jim didn't mention this in his paper)

Stallmann's moral vision ... I bet the only software he'll be sending machines is that which is licensed under the GPL, not any kind of BSD-style license ... (XFree, GNOME [LGPL]) are also those most in need

yes, and since hiring dyslexic Bradley Kuhn, RMS has gone from Stallman to Stallmann. (see above comment.)

Do you not know that it was Stallman that started GNOME? and it was FSF that wrote the LGPL? and it's FSF that are hosting the Xouvert project to help XFree? and that it was Stallmans idea to change ogg vorbis from GPL to BSD license?

RMS was once asked, since there is a free software song, would there ever be a GNU song?
He said no, GNU is not the point, Free Software is the point.

People like misinterpretting him, or finding small flaws, but don't ignore that he's dedicated his life to giving freedom to computer users.

The first two responses to the first whine make sense. That's what Jonathan Walther is up to here.

It's semi-vaporware at the moment due to Mr. Walther getting stuck in a legal quagmire, but check the list mbox and you'll see that development is proceeding along quietly.

You know it's a sweet project when it generates IRC logs like this one.

http://www.xouvert.org/irc/2003/10/27

I believe this is what you are looking for.

slashdot story on the topic.

Not exactly a complete rewrite, but still a step in the right direction: Xouvert, a XFree86 fork.

Nah, the replacement for X as we know it will still be X.

-uso.

Its Xouvert, not Xoutert.

Hell, I would have thought one up for 50 bucks. here's a freebie:

"Shaznasta"

That's sweet man! You should do marketing for open source projects, I think. Here's the first guys that need help: Xouvert. ;-)