Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake Blocked By XFree86 4.4 License
Linzer writes "A mailing-list message posted by Mandrake Linux's main developer on the Cooker mailing-list states that the development version of the distro is about to revert from XFree86 4.4 to the 4.3 version because of XFree86's recent license change. Mandrake contributors have started asking for justifications from MdkSoft. Many point out features of XF86 4.4 [an 'an open source X11-based desktop infrastructure'] they can't live without, including support for some not so uncommon hardware.
A later Cooker mailing-list post extends a bit on the reasons."
This is no big deal, just import the Win2k source that's been floating around. Of course by design it will have to run in kernel space. That way you, too, can enjoy slightly zippier performance with the unix equivalent of random blue screens..
Its nice to see the XFree86.org folks making the transition to the freedesktop.org smoother by making themselves irrelevent to users. Nice going guys!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Note: I don't actually speak for RMS, but I am reminded of his doctrine every time someone says "I need this non-free software". ;^)
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
What exactly has changed in the 4.4 release?
Is it absolutely necessary to have a sig. ?
As far as I can tell, all Mandrake would need to do is include the new text in with the rest of the copyright/liscense info and they'd be in compliance? Why is this a big deal? Or is there some subtle legal thing at work?
It appears to my uneducated eye that this is a very slight modification which shouldn't make any difference to mandrake beyond the typical publication of copyright notices.
If Mandrake takes it seriously enough to revert to 4.3 I must be wrong? Anyone have an explanation?
Yes, I know, XFree was, and still is, THE X11 free implementation for a Linux graphical subsystem. YES, it is by far one of the most advanced overall. But NO, there is NOT only this one.
This implementation is the one we've been using for Linux Ages. But since recently, they have failed to deliver a greater-than-the-previous product: no extraordinary boosts, no rewrite of the starting system, etc... It's beginning to grow too old - we can see that by the starting greed of the project over its programmers.
What we need is a new subsystem, like Xouvert or freedesktop.org's X Server implementation.
This is my opinion. Everyone has a right to my opinion.
Since everyone thought it was just dandy to package someone else's graphics system (XFree) with their Linux distribution, these is exactly the sort of consequences one should expect.
Build your own, if you want to be in control of its terms. If you bundle someone else's product with your product, that's a choice you make and a risk you take.
Wouldn't a good solution to be what Mozilla did to ensure GPL compatibility? Cross-license XF86 under its own liberal license, the GPL, and the LGPL. This way, companies like mandrake could easily use it under an "approved" license, hassle free. -- What to keep away from dogs
...to XFree86 but I don't see them making any new friends by doing this kind of thing. As soon as
alternatives are more mature, XFree86 will feel the heat.
And as for the Free in XFree86... Hmm..
But in the last several years it really just hasn't moved.
18 years ago the Mac // came out. We stole a vid card from one and put it in another. 4 seconds later, we had 2 screens showing one continuous desktop. Windows and X Windows finally now can do that if you kill a chicken at the full moon.
The X Consortium kept X down for critical years - backing off from coming close to dictating look at feel. As a result, doing things like Exiting an App was a Tower of Babel proposition (frame != lotus != xv != wordperfect != anything else).
Gnome and KDE was developed by folks used to Windows and Mac as kids who demanded a style guide. Too late?
X11R6/Broadway was released and, as far as I can discern, mostly development has stopped. Sure we have drivers to take advantage of cards and 3D engines and such, but it's pretty well unchanged from 1994.
Where is my easy Log Back in and have it give me my desktop I left back (start up the apps I had with cursors in the places I had them)?
Where is my ability to snapshot and env, give up the machine, move to another and restart it?
What's moved FORWARD except drivers in the last couple years?
Why do we care about .. releases.
License?
I have faith that it will be worked out with everyone happy. This reminds me too much of the IPF flameup over a license in a beta of darren's code. It caused PF to be written, but that was mostly schoolyard maturity at work on that one.
You can read his analysis on a thread on debian-legal.
There's also been extensive discussion of the new license on debian-legal. The discussion carries over from Jan into February too.
But how is this license change is big problem?
#Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
# The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
From the looks of the problematic clauses, it seems that all that needs to be changed is some documentation.
EVERYDAY IS CATURDAY
Can somebody please explain in plain language what the big deal is??? At first read, it sounds just like you just need to include a little extra text. Am I missing something?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Debian is expected to run into this problem in 2038. Way to go Branden.
Can someone explain why Mandrake is the only distro blocked now?
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
Trustworthy sources tell me that Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian are reacting similarly. The license change was announced as a fait accompli, and after being urged to reconsider, David Dawes went ahead with it any way.
This might be the sort of thing the freedesktop.org people are talking about when they say XFree86 (the project) doesn't have any accountability to the community. They seem to have a problem working cooperatively with others.
Freedesktop.org not only has a couple of big-name figures from the glory days of X involved (Jim Gettys and Keith Packard), but they also have actively involved various third parties and stakeholders in the X Window System technology -- not just the Linux distributions, but leading developers in GNOME, KDE, and Mozilla to name just a few, and some other people who were kicked out of the XFree86 project.
XFree86 does not seem to have been able to make the transition from the small hobbyist audience that it served in 1993. Maybe David Dawes and the few remaining participants in XFree86 will be happier producing a custom version of the X Window System for themselves and a tiny minority of others. Maybe they didn't lack the skills to be a large community project: just the motivation.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Nothing to see here - I believe Mandrake are brewing a storm in a teacup. The crux of the license change is that if you redistribute source or binary code, then you must also distribute a notice (along with any other third party notices) that says some of your product was written by the XFree86 team.
What's wrong with that? You are still allowed to modify and redistribute the code to your heart's content, as long as you acknowledge the original authors. Wouldn't you want your work acknowledged?
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2004-02/
Moderators, keep an eye open!
Do you support USB mice yet?
I think Stallman would remind he foresaw this situation many years ago:
The X Windows Trap
If people like you weren't so busy misrepresenting his views you'd see that.
an ill wind that blows no good
It is perfectly fine for all "free" software to require the attachment of the GNU license on everything yet it is highly offensive for X86Free to require "free" software to state that it came from them?
hmmmmmmm......
I find this paragraph specially interesting:
If you notice the defensive post by Alan Cox that he's asking them not to
change the license on his contributions, there's something wrong with it in
the sense that it doesn't appear as "free" software anymore (free as in
libre). (Not that they could, since Alan owns what he wrote of course)
This kind of action only adds to the licensing mess xfree86 currently is. Working with the xfree86 devlopment team is becoming harder and harder.
I can see why some mandrake users are pissed about this, but in the end it'll be better for everyone.
Jeesussss....... all this over a BSD'ish clause in the new licensing. Can someone give me a rational explanation as to why the GPL is so problematic in this area? What in hell is wrong with giving credit where credit is due (i.e.: I create something based on a BSD 1.x/MIT/X/Hi I require you to give me credit for being the basis of your creation license, and so , being the upright person that I am, I responsibly give credit.) How does this preclude software, any software created under these conditions from being free, unless the original licensing of the 'base' product I used to create my widget isn't going to allow me to give derivitave works away under my own licensing terms (as in free libre/beer, and if it wasn't going to allow me to do this, I'd drop it like a hot bullet and find something else to use)?
I am so glad that I use the *BSD's. Pretty much avoid mess's like this altogether.
Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Actually, in case you hadn't noticed, these are the Glory Days of X, man. I don't consider that era when you had to worry about 8 bit color palette collisions to be anything like a time of glory. TrueColor displays, KDE, Gnome, XRender, Xft.. these are some of the ingredients of a glorious new age for X. Happily, Keith and Jim are still involved.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I noticed in the first link that they specified that they were remvoing Japanese fonts from Mandrake 10rc1. I happen to use Mandrake because I was impressed with their foreign language support, specifically Japanese. Does anybody know why they are removing Japanese fonts and if there is anything that can be done about it?
freedesktop.org already has replacements for pretty much everything in xfree86. The new license change has just sped up the need for it to work now. They recently released their new xlibs, and Keith Packard is still working on a replacement xserver. The only major problem left is that since the new xserver is a redesign it will need new binary drivers from ati/nvidia.
http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xserver
Not...
Mandrake sells a "Linux" OS. That's what they have on the box...
But, in reality, it should be an "XFree86" OS. That happens to run on Linux...
Or... XFree86/GNU/OpenOffice/Linux.
In terms of importance, I think that the XFree86 component is MORE vital to Mandrake than Linux (right now). It is easier to replace the kernel than to replace the X Server.
And the X folk are demanding some recognition...
Suck it up, and give it to them. There was a time when running "Linux" did not mean a GUI. A lot of uses STILL don't need a GUI. But most (RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE) compete with the GUI.
So give it up to the X folk... Put it on that package. Yes, even at this late date.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Keith Packard from FD.o will resolve the issue to become DFSG-free though how isn't decided:
.pcf.Z font file support shouldn't be a significant issue; .pcf.gz files for many years.
n -l egal-200402/msg00116.html
"Around 14 o'clock on Feb 11, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The DFSG-incompatibility of xc/lib/font/fontfile/decompress.c is more
> serious.
Disabling
XFree86 has used
We can either stub-out the functions in decompress.c or delete their
references in fontfile/fileio.c and remove the files completely.
I'll do the latter for the freedesktop distribution; I have a strong
desire to make the released software from that source completely DFSG-free.
-keith"
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debia
How does this stop anybody that wants to run 4.4 with Mandrake from installing it separately? Yes, this delays the Mandrake release, but the Mandrake should have settled the license issues before they upgraded to 4.4; then it wouldn't be necessary to roll back the changes.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
People are saying this license change is "incompatible" with the GPL... however under the wording of the change it is still acceptable for individual files to be copyrighted, and included in the XFree86 base as licensed under the GPL. You're really RMSing if you are going to noodle about having to include an extra copyright notice in your documentation.
This has little to do with anything other than the fact that Mandrake team realizes it's not a valuble use of their time to go through adding all these new copyright notices when you're in RC1 state. Not sure how it compares with rolling back to 4.3 in terms of actual labor, but obviously the CBA came out on the side of rollback.
The biggest joke here is that people are crying about losing the features of 4.4, in a distribution that doesn't do anything to stop you from DOWNLOADING AND INSTALLING THE BLEEDING EDGE FROM SOURCE whenever you feel like it. for crying out loud, people. DIY!
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
I love the use of, commas in the newsletter. It makes me feel, so comforted that the people who made this decision, are intelligent, people.
Just out of interest, what is new/changed in 4.4? I looked through the site and didn't find anything. Is it just new hardware support, or more substantial things (ie: proper XRENDER (think that's it anyway) extensions, hardware gl support, rendering of transparancy....)? Anyone got a changelog or brief overview?
I dont see whats the big deal, issues like this can create new tech, and spark new creative ideas in the community.
I'm not sure if this is just a publicity stunt, or what, but you can bet even if Mandrake refuses to ever update XFree86 again (which would be REAL healthy for them, since there's no alternative on the immediate horizon), that plenty of distributions with common sense WILL. Personally, I do not find the new XFree86 license to be unreasonable, or incompatible with the GPL. And is the FSF or some other organization going to sue a Linux distributor over shipping XFree86? They'd have to be on crack to want a test case for the GPL like that.
My advice: go ahead and ship it, remembering the old Grace Hopper quote. You won't benefit by watching your user base defect.
If you have a BSD-licensed product, you shouldn't feel a need to build your own if you find appropriate BSD-licensed components.
...
:-)
If you have a GPL-licensed product, you shouldn't feel a need to build your own if you find appropriate GPL-licensed components.
If you're making something proprietary, well, I guess yeah, build your own.
Or
If you're making something proprietary, use a BSD licensed or GPL component, just don't get caught.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well I guess this is the first step at digging Xfree86's grave, isn't it? Distros will stop shipping it, people will stop using it, what's left of the developers at xfree86.org will lose interest in developing it and the whole project will head towards a slow death.
It's a bit early to draw conclusions but if all the distros will drop it one by one, it's just what will happen. I'll theink we'll be better off with the alternatives (Xouvert & the X server at freedesktop.org) anyway.
I've had the same experience.
Quit whining about the XF86 people having a restrictive and self-damning license when you haven't read it!
By comparison, the GPL is much more restrictive than the new XF86 license.
Stop calling anything that touches a "Linux Kernel" "LINUX".
Beacuse refering to a Sendmail/PostgreSQL/Apache web serving solution as a LINUX solution, credit is being taken away from the fine work of the Sendmail/PostgreSQL/Apache staff.
To do such is a 'rebanding' - Mandrake understands the important of branding (having been sued over taking someone elses brand - Mandrake the Magic dude) and is RIGHTLY worried about the re-branding they are doing of the fine work of the X11 group.
Taking others work and calling it your own is what Microsoft does....too bad the Lets-Rebrand-Everything-Linux are willing to copy Microsoft and unwilling to share credit with others.
How about we put all unfunny people like you on trains and send them off into camps? It's not big deal. Simple solution.
John? John Ashcroft?
Shouldn't you be putting terminally ill medical marijuana users in prison with Tommy Chong or tearing up the Constitution or something, rather than posting to Slashdot?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I'm not going to run it. Everyone who writes software has a right to decide on their own licence, but everyone also has a right to choose not to use it.
It's like wiping your ass with silk. I love it.
It seems to me that this licensing problem, no matter how small or insignificant it may be, is still just one more step on the way towards XFree86 becoming truly irrelevant.
Let's face it--even if you totally ignore the license problem, many of us have still seen XFree86's demise coming for a while now, with the closed nature of their development community, and their increasing lack of innovation and lack of progress in commiting new features and technologies.
...when the author is deceased. When he ceases to be? When he is... No more! When... You get the picture... :)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
But not those who have had experience with the X Consortium/X11R6.4...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
From: Theo de Raadt
Like other projects, we will not be incorporating new code from David
Dawes into the XFree86 codebase used in OpenBSD. All such changes
have to be skipped, rewritten, or you can contact the XFree86 group
and place your own efforts to repair this damage.
the message continues.. but I think you get the point. Check the mailing list archives for the entire message
the license is giung to take up more hard drive space than the program code. Well I have a new license for you. It's called the "Playa Utopia License" (PUL) It goes like this:
Be nice.
See how easy it can be? Regardless what all you mystics say, life CAN be that simple. I hope you all live long enough to see the error of your ways. It sounds like a curse, and it could be, depending on your POV.
-There are people on this planet who don't love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that. -TL(?)
What?
mitch
p.s. - if the reference is too obscure for "funny", I'll go for "interesting" (or maybe "flamebait")... Can someone explain to me why this sort of thing doesn't give anti-OSS types ammunition w.r.t. how the GPL doesn't play nicely with others, and why you shouldn't base your project on it?
I'd suggest that Mandrake people could not be forced (at law) to go back to older versions than what they already use, if they don't want to conform with the new licence and its extra notification conditions.
If anybody has already used and relied on the latest version (or latest -rc) and its associated licence conditions _before_ the recent statement of licence change, it seems likely there would legally be an estoppel to prevent the XFree86 people succeeding if they try to retrospectively enforce a tightening-up of licence terms -- though I guess they can use new terms freely for their own future releases. [btw, of course this is legal debate not legal advice - CYOLA]
It looks, regrettably, like the kind of action that could make a fork viable and even necessary.
-wb-
I agree with you. In most cases, BSD-style licenses are less problematic than GPL licenses.
I could not find it easily on the freedesktop.org page; so what is the license of freedesktop.org? Is it GPL or BSD or the old XFree license or something else?
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Can't someone fork the 4.3 version and just continue to use the old license?
This is why I don't like non-GNU licenses by default. I just don't trust them.
Seems we need a new analogy.
We already have:
Free as in Beer
Free as in Speech.
Maybe we can describe XFree as "Free as in Microsoft."
with the unix equivalent of random blue screens
Oh. Apparently blue screens are "teh funny" because you see them when Windows crashes. Yeah, that was like TEN YEARS AGO. Hey, fucktard! 1993 called, it wants it's Windows joke back.
I want surgical 2x4s to be legal so that I can apply one to the back of your head for being so absolutely fucking retarded. You've been humping the Linux experience so long that you've turned into a mindless drone. I have KDE and Mozilla explode with far more regularity than Windows 2000 does - and I use Windows 2000 on my primary computer, Linux on the secondary for some minor tasks.
I don't remember when I last saw a blue screen, but it may have been in 2001. A fully-patched Win2k is the best OS that Microsoft has ever made. KDE locked up on me last month just trying to copy files around and I had to ctrl+alt+backspace to kill it.
Linux et all are making progress, but complacent bullshit, untrue, unfunny jokes attacking competitors have no place in a serious Linux evangelist's manifesto and only serve to set back the free software cause.
Diplomacy 101: If you're going to lie about your competitors, shut the fuck up. If there are weaknesses in your own projects, talk about them so that they will be improved (eg: Yes, XFree does absolutely suck, how can we fix or replace it?)
I thought the new license allowed for including the contributor list in the documentation. I'm not well versed, though. So the requirement is that something has to pop up infront of the user at runtime?
Noone else is demanding recognition for their work. They're a part of the global community and have accepted the terms. It all works nicely.
But that's not what stuns me the most about your post. It's your way of thinking - HOW, i say, HOW on earth could X be more important than Linux to Linux? There is a reason that Mandrake is Linux, not just because IT IS BASED on the Linux kernel in the way it works as of today, but also because this is the way one use and contribute to the GPL community. And it's named Mandrake Linux. That's why it's sold, downloaded and used. Jesus.
In the end, X is nothing without what's on top. Which is a lot of GPL. If GPL distributors refuse to use XFree4.4, but only distribute GPL compatible software, someone would have to create everything BUT X. With X licensing. Great.
OpenBSD has always been very picky when it comes to respecting licenses (unlike most other OS, they read the Postfix license before putting it on CD's).
:
Here's a recent post from Theo de Raadt on the OpenBSD misc@ mailing list
Like other projects, we will not be incorporating new code from David
Dawes into the XFree86 codebase used in OpenBSD. All such changes
have to be skipped, rewritten, or you can contact the XFree86 group
and place your own efforts to repair this damage.
I've tried to negotiate with David Dawes, and show him that his new
license is not acceptable, and he has been hostile and it has gone
nowhere. He keeps insisting that his license is a standard BSD
licenses, yet, he won't use the same words that Berkeley used; if his
words were intended to be compatible to the Berkeley spirit then he
would be happy to use the same words; but he is not, and insists on
different words which a lot of the community has trouble with.
It seems like every 8 years or so we have to go through some period
where someone tries to take free software and makes it less free
because they don't feel they are getting enough credit.
This is final; if that license stands, there will be forking.
And if you don't like that, don't bother telling me. Tell them.
{{.sig}}
Regardless, whatever. Big words are fun, huh?
It's rather sad that I knew what your post would say even as I clicked on "1 reply below your current threshold".
I'm an English graduate, so I know what I'm talking about. I suspect from your tone that you haven't graduated from grade school yet, which suggests that you don't.
Allow me to clue you in: "irregardless" is a proper English word. You may not like it, but it's in my dictionary. "Dipshit" is not in my dictionary, but that's another matter.
> (2) the new XFree86 licence is likely not GPL-compatible, which causes huge problems for all distributors, not just Mandrake.
These claims sound really weak, from my POV. I don't know about you (all), if you've ever read the new XFree86 Project License v1.1 or not, but it's really really lesser restrictive then the GPL ever will be.
*yes, that's verry hard to do, mmm, </sarcasm>*, it's no more hassle that puting a 'copyright' disclaimer on something, "You put in in one place, and it's valid for the whole thing", you don't have to include it on overy *freaking page*, one place, is enough;
But, my suspicios is (from the second part of the first claim), that they have allready send the 'STUFF' to print, or something else (like they are "lazy as french are rumored to be"-distro) if they think it's such a hassle to add one or two lines of text in two place (1st: doc or other 'materials', and 2nd: add it to the same place of 'copyright, license and disclaimer information').
Stop b*tching, will ye', and look at the big picture! Let 'them' learn the benefits of OSS on/in their own tempo - don't be/do a 'Bushie' and corner them, and say "either you are with us, or against us" </jissis> ... ever thought, your way ( I say 'your' as I'm not an endores of it) of pushing them, to disclose sources, is the cause of why we haven't seen them embrace Linux/OpenSource with unwillingness?....*/
Yes, I can see/agree it could be a 'hassle', but, not a 'biggy' that couldn't be resolved before their development branch reaches release stage.
*Come on* Let's get real, WE can have a distribution that has components under different licenses, *not a biggy*, you the 'distro maker' licenses your stuff under your license, and the software you incorporated from other sources licences their stuff how they seem fit. Look at an average, Apple Mac OS/Win32 desktop, it's mixed with a bunch of different licences, that the end-user has agreed to abide by.
From my POV, it wouldn't be 'new users who switched' that would find these 'licence' stuff difficult to abide by, but more the PURE OSS minded folks, who've been around th
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
i've been waitin for over a year to get my ATI Radeon IGP 320 supported.
Now, Xfree finally will support it in 4.4, Mandrake won't include it.
Now I'm already regretting the club membership I paid for...
Jeesussss....... all this over a BSD'ish clause in the new licensing. Can someone give me a rational explanation as to why the GPL is so problematic in this area? What in hell is wrong with giving credit where credit is due
A) If you're a nice person, you'd already do that.
B) If you're not a nice person, it can be deeply buried in some obscure reference somewhere.
And if you then start to spell it out in detail exactly how it must be placed so that it *is* visible (like the original BSD licence on advertisements, XFree in documentation) it's bound to be either vastly ineffective against people that aren't nice, or so restrictive it becomes really annoying to people that are. That's what happened with the original BSD licence. I suspect this one is just going to be ineffective.
I imagine the reason for this whole crap is that under the BSD licence, the source doesn't need to be released, so in a proprietary app noone will know about it. While with a GPL'd program, everyone can read the source and see if they're using other people's work, and give them bad karma about it.
Anyway, if the beef was with proprietary apps, there would be a really really simple solution. EITHER acknowledge in documentation, OR distribute source where the copyright headers would be the acknowledgement. That should be fully GPL compatible, and provide a way to verify that BSD code was used under all circumstances. It's not like the exposure would be much different, very few read either the acknowledgements or the copyright headers...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This will be the death of us all.. Too many restrictive/conflicting licenses..
Will end up where no one can do anything with out stepping on someone elses license/patent/copyright.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There always seem to be people on Slashdot who ask why so much work is "wasted" on two projects to solve the same problem. The most notable example is KDE vs. Gnome. Well, I think this is a perfect example of why that's a great thing. The XFree guys haven't had serious competition in years and now we're all begging for the freedesktop.org guys to come to the rescue. All of the "wasted" effort does have a purpose, it keeps people from trying these kinds of shenanigans.
"I think the U.N. is going to find that the blame lies with all the Sudanese rap music that glamorizes genocide."
Or maybe you'd prefer FreeXFree?
F.O.Dobbs
irregardless ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gardls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.
[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
So, would you like fries with that, Mr. English graduate?
Merriam-Webster not only defines irregardless,
but also states that the "most frequently repeated remark about it is that 'there is no such word.'"
Gentoo aren't including any new xfree releases (>4.3.99.902) until the licence is sorted out.
From the analysis I've seen in Debian lists, the new license wouldn't really be a problem if it just applied to the Xserver. The problem comes with the X client libraries (xlib and friends) that have to be linked with GPL (and other, the GPL is not the only problem here) programs.
Now, when it comes to the users, most of the new features they want have to do with hardware support, which is an Xserver feature. So it's possible that, as an interim solution, systems could be shipped with the new, ugly-licensed Xserver, but with older-but-sanely-licensed xlibs. This would seem to address everyone's issues fairly well.
I've always felt it was a bit of a mistake to have the client-side and server-side of XFree86 tied together anyway. They are pretty much independent, and I think it might make the most sense for XFree86 to abandon the client side, and just focus on making Xservers, while Freedesktop could ignore the server side (at least for now) and focus on the client libraries. Would make both parties jobs easier.
From the looks of the screen shots on their web page these projects seem like an interesting alternative that can potentially put the Linux desktop at a stage not achievable via X alone - A true alpha blended desktop!!!... haven't tried it out cuz the driver support seems lacking... is there any way to port drivers from X into this project without causing all sorts of license problems?
"Learn English properly." does not mean the same thing as "Learn proper English."
The first implies that you're learning or have learnt it improperly, and you need to adapt your learning methods. The second implies that you have not learnt real, grammatically correct, English, regardless of learning methods, and you should do so. As far as I know, both are correct uses of the English language.
Reading this YADAX (yet another discussion about X) here and problems with same, I remembered that a while ago a bunch of people set out to write a replacement, first called "Berlin", later Fresco. But the "latest news" on their web page is about ten months old. Is Fresco dead or just resting after a prolonged squawk?
Many XFree86 developers work very hard to bring us a great window system. I've used XFree86 for quite a while, and it continues to improve. I don't see what the big deal is about giving the developers credit. libjpeg has a similar clause, but I find that most applications don't honor it. I guess we need to rewrite libjpeg for the stupid GNU zealots.
From the libjpeg README:
"In plain English:
1. We don't promise that this software works. (But if you find any bugs, please let us know!)
2. You can use this software for whatever you want. You don't have to pay us.
3. You may not pretend that you wrote this software. If you use it in a program, you must acknowledge somewhere in your documentation that you've used the IJG code."
I fucking knew it!
Another bastardisation of the Queen's English by a bunch of bloody foreigners !
to create a GPL alternative to XFree86.
If you want something done right you got to do it yourself.
there's no problem linking GPL code to non-free X11 implementations, such as OpenWindows, so why would there be a problem linking it with a Free X11 implementation like XFree86-4.4?
This isn't an ideological issue on the part of Linux distros. The only Linux distros that will be able to live with XFree's new license are source based distros like Gentoo. Linking GPLed source with the new XFree86 is no problem provided you do it yourself. Distributing the binaries is. For all that the likes of SCO say that IP isn't respected, it is. The new XFree86 will make it potentially illegal to distribute vast tracts of software as binaries. This is not a practical situation for the Linux distros.
There will eventually be a fork of XFree86 that the distros will use. It will this fork that gets the drivers and eventually most other development as well. What we really should be worried about is Debian having one codebase, RedHat another, and Suse still another. The sooner there is a legally kosher common codebase the better.
As usual, RMS penetrates to the core. The X Consortium has made this software non-free. Ultimately, right or wrong, they have the control.
But here's the issue - the last time this happened we ended up with GNONE (not that I dislike it) and KDE (not that I mind so much). Further fracturing the desktop (not that it's GNOME OR KDE's fault).
Can you imagine what will happen if the general consensus is to dump Xfree86 but NOT be able to agree on a successor? Then you'll have even more problems with compatability to deal with!
Ultimately KDE assured the community with a broader license but we all still live with the aftermath.
BTW, do you think that this licensing in any way affects or is partly because of Apple?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Note: I said "quote". That means you have to at least attempt to read the GPL before you answer.
Dave Dawes message went to the contributors asking them if they wanted their contribution as is or changed to his new license. I wanted my contributions usable by all the X projects, including whoever finally gets annoyed enough to fork XFree.
BTW for Mandrake people (and mandrake themselves) there is a driver for the VIA chipset including DRI on ftp://people.redhat.com/alan. There is also a patch from Bero on the the dri Wiki which you may need depending which Mesa you use. I (and Im sure VIA who wrote most of the driver!) would love to see the via driver in Mandrake's XFree 4.3 packages if they go that way.
I also hope to have an accelerated Voodoo2 driver with DGA and maybe render acceleration available in the next couple of weeks - and that doesn't need Glide.
Windows has drawing issues too. Classic MacOS had the same issue. Mac OS X is the only OS I know of that doesn't have the drawing issue. The RAM and Processor requirements for keeping the screen buffer are rather large, which is why the other, older systems don't have it. Even on a Mac, there are still problems. Moving a window might be smooth but resizing it isn't. I have a Dual 1.2Ghz G4 with a Radeon 8500 at home. There's no reason such a system should have drawing issues yet it does. My PC at work running Linux handles window resizing better than my Mac.
Windows will get a screen buffer in Longhorn.
X will get one when someone writes it. I'm pretty sure there is work going on to put something like this in X already.
Link
Try disuninrregardlesslibility next time... :-)
Or maybe "not-lookingly".
Lol.
The reason it isn't a problem is because of the "major component of an operating system" exception.
However, that may only apply to people distributing GNOME for Solaris seperate from Solaris.
If Sun distribute Solaris and GNOME together they may well be in violation. As I read it, if GPL GNOME executables that depend on Suns proprietary components "accompany" each other on the same distribution the exception doesn't apply.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Look at the state of open source. The farthest they managed to get was the server platform. That's mostly the work of apache and postfix (and other mail packages). Open Source is so divided that it can't accomplish anything. THERE IS NO STANDARDIZATION. XFree86 is supported by ATI and NVidia, but look what happens when one company decides not to play fair. The linux community will always stay in this decadent state while it's factionized.
OpenBSD has imported the XFree4.4 Release Candidate immediately before this stupid licensing change and will be basing further work off that.
I don't think that it will be long before these efforts link up and produce a viable fork.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
:)
D
No need to read the GPL but the FAQ
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBS
"misspelt"?
Ohhhh...I get it. You're being ironiful.
Oh wow, another linux holy war. how exciting. wake me when its over.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
What fucking restrictions do I fucking impose on the fucking recipient? He has all the same rights I have. I give him the source of the entire program (GNOME) as GPL requires, the license to redistribute that source, blah blah. What else?
Given the historical proclivitiy of the British monarchy to fuck anything that moved (and even that was optional), I would think you people would be used to bastards by now.
Its happening more often than ever,you just can understand what they are trying to say in any of the GPL,GNU,open source license any more.The whole idea of sharing code and everyone free to use it has been lost somewhere.I remember a postabout a FreeBSD founding member quitting for the exact same reason.
Theres more emphasis on who gets credit and who's code it is than the actual code itself.And it creates more problems like this when theres no real alternative to the code being discussed.Even though i think XFree86 is great! but they could do without the mess and help it spread more.
Lord of the Binges.
It depends on the copyright of the driver code.
If the driver for YOUR chipset is not under the "problematic" lisence, it may very well get back ported to 4.3.
If it came from ATI, it may not be a problem.
YMMV---stone Mandrake with your issue: it may already be in the works.
Everyones's already pissed at them, and now there are several apparently viable competitors, a concept likely foreign to them.
The same things the exile your strongest developers created this lisence issue, and will eventually kill XFree86 as a viable entity.
(IMHO,YMMV,OITMAFTTA)
Moderators, keep an eye open!
Seems they did...too bad there isn't a "-1 theif" moderation.
As I said in the subject Darl == David Dawes. This man had done more to piss off developers then anyone except maybe Darl from our beloved SCO Group..See email below from the xfree86 mailing list:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:17:42PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>Hi David !
>
>> On looking through the fbdev drivers in the Linux kernel source, I see
>> very few cases where license notices from XFree86 driver source are
>> included. This means that either the license for these drivers has no
>> impact on the work you are talking about (making what you have written
>> above moot), or some authors of portions of the current Linux fbdev code
>> have violated the terms of the existing licenses by not including a
>> verbatim copy of the copyright, license notice, and disclaimer text in
>> relevant source code.
>>
>> I would also like to echo Egbert's comments about the one-way nature of
>> your concerns.
>
>I'm mostly concerned at this point about radeonfb and rivafb. The radeonfb
>in the current mainstream kernel was written by Ani Joshi who also wrote the
>first radeon driver in XFree. So there wasn't any liencing issue at this
>point.
>However, I rewrote the kernel driver almost completely using a lot of
>informations from the XFree one as ATI is maintaining it actively.
>
>My rewritten radeonfb driver _do_ contain a copy of the licence included
>in the XFree one along with the (c) assignement.
So there is no problem as far as radeonfb is concerned. The licence
choice for a driver always has been (and still is) the authors' choice.
The same applies for other code in XFree86. If the authors' choice is
incompatible with your preferences, then you are free to discuss that
with the authors. Licences like the modified XFree86 licence have
*always* been acceptable to XFree86, and some code in XFree86 already
carried licences like this prior to our latest modification. I haven't
seen great objections to that before. Why now?
Back to the XFree86 radeon driver, the listed copyright holders for the
bulk of that code are ATI and VA. If those copyright holders were to
change their licenses (and whether they do or not is entirely up to
them), then you would have to approach them about such changes if they
happened to be incompatible with your requirements.
>The fact that it is mostly a one way is mostly due to the fact that the
>main problem here is seeking for HW informations. Card vendors put that
>information into XFree via drivers, we rely on this for the kernel drivers.
Speaking from my own experience, a big reason why it is one way is
because many developers err on the side of caution to avoid infecting
their code with the GPL virus, and to avoid baseless accusations from
the GPL zealots that they have illegally "stolen" GPL'd code.
Perhaps a more serious part of the "one way" problem is this very
discussion. Has anyone considered modifying the GPL to be more compatible
with other Open Source licences rather than trying to force all Open
Source licences to be a subset of the GPL? To me it seems a signficant
flaw to the GPL if it is incompatible with Open Source developers' desire
to receive due credit for their work from those who redistribute it.
If GPL compatibility is such a big issue to GPL advocates, then perhaps,
for their own benefit, it needs to be more accomodating than it currently
is.
David
--
David Dawes
developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project
www.XFree86.org/~dawes
1. XFree86 4.3 works just fine, so most people will continue to use that for as long as it takes to come up with a suitable alternative.
2. Many people are working on suitable alternatives; this annoyance might inspire them, invigorate them, or, more likely, piss them off. Any of the three would speed their efforts. This is a Good Thing.
3. Having something new, something cleaner, something fresh and interesting would be really cool, anyway. So it's not like discarding XFree86 is going to hurt us.
4. If the X guys wanna shoot themselves in the head, shouldn't we support them in that? You don't want to crush their dreams, do you? Perhaps they want to be revered like Kurt Cobain, and have a candlelight vigil in their name or something. C'mon, let 'em be happy! Everyone go back to X 4.3 and light a candle in memory of the Geeks That Time Forgot.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
</OT_MODBAIT>
when over consecutive editorial, functional and algorithmic changes a "contributor's" contributions are edited away? In an OSS situation it is feasible for practically all the original code to be removed or modified beyond recognition. Are the original and interim authors whose code helped but is no longer present STILL contributors?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
The secret to growing big, huge, gigantic, beautiful, delicious, colorful vegetables is the soil. It's ALL in the soil. Soil is alive. Something like 3 billion micro-organisms in a teaspoon of it. Unfortunately, much of the soil in use today on our modern factory farms is "dead". Pesticides, high-nitrogen fertilizers, and monoculture (growing the same crop in the same spot year after year after year after year) "kill" the soil. It's the microorganisms in the soil that actually do the dying, the various types of earthworms, and other living organisms in the soil - they die - the chemicals kill them. Anyone who brews beer will understand that when something powerful is going on (yeast) that sucks up the nutritional value, bad things like molds don't have any food to grow. Same theory - with healthy soil, you get healthy veggies, and you don't need pesticides because healthier plants tend to not get pests.
The reason that open-source software and people collaborating is so effective is because all those countless volunteers who spend their time working on the code, contributing to it, making it better - they are like the earthworms; they are like the microorganisms in the soil, that do the growing of the software.
It's an amazing analogy. You can buy nutrition and security for your plants - fertilizers, pesticides, genetically engineered seeds. Or you can use what nature has provided and "grow soil". All you need to do is "grow soil", and you will have yields that will boggle your mind. The veggies will be bigger, they will have less disease, they will need less water (although this has to do with planting diagrams and keeping the soil in the shade with plants planted closer together, not in rows, more like you would find plants in nature, more random, not in rows. Many people tend to not think of "soil" as something that is "alive", but what we call soil IS alive, actually - as long as you don't dump chemicals on it.
In any case, you get the idea. If you want good veggies, you focus on the soil. You can "buy" soil nutrition via fertilizers, but it's not as good, and it's more expensive. So it would logically follow then, that in order to "grow" dynamic, excellent software, what you actually need to do is to "grow" the developer community. Good software results from growing a "community", a community of developers. Respect is good, but it can't code. Acknowlegement is fine, but a living, breathing, thinking, developer is much better. Actually, make that plural - living, breathing, thinking developerS are even better!
This is obviously killing the community - that's what it's doing, so it's really sad, in a way - that the X people don't understand why open source and community-based projects like Linux do so well - it's the "soil". A project will die if it's license doesn't encourage vast numbers of developers to get involved. That's why proprietary software tends to not be as advanced as open source projects that encourage participation from qualified volunteers. If you don't encourage participation from qualified volunteers, your project will slowly fade away and be replaced by a project that has an active and dynamic developer pool.
Xfree86 got it from x.org. Can they encumber what they got?
publical? / no
Thx that was my plan to use your driver in my next build.
Fred - May the source be with you
The problem isn't the X server. It's badly written software or toolkits. Properly written X appications won't smear like that. Xterm doesn't do it. I write X applications and they don't have the problem.
The most likely cause of the problem is that the program has a very slow redraw function, probably due to object-oriented code, and calls that function in full on every Expose event. The way I avoid the problem is to check for events within the redraw loop using XPending(3X11). I check once every N drawing elements, and if I never get events, I increase N within that one redraw, increasing efficiency. If I do get an event, I terminate the redraw and return control to the main event switch statement.
Mozilla Firebird has the problem to a much smaller extent than plain Mozilla, for some reason.
I anticipate your saying, "You had to apply a crude hack." Well, that's not it. It takes time and effort to master X programming; that's a consequence of X's power and flexibility. There's nothing wrong with XFree86's implementation of X that I've run into. X takes the blame for a lot of mistakes by application and toolkit programmers.
Since the last story on Slashdot about this, I've been wondering why no one seems to bring up that GPL programs are allowed to link to non-GPL (even closed/proprietary) libraries. Not in general, of course, but the GPL does actually allow this in the case of OS libraries. I don't think anyone realistically could contest that XFree86 is a system library in pretty much any distribution (MacOS X and cygwin come to mind as the likely exceptions).
The point here is that XFree86 could go closed source and it would still have no effect on GPL programs in the common cases. So, the GPL angle is basically a red herring.
(That said, I do think the license change qualifies as a pretty seriously dumb idea.)
The method I described isn't to stop smearing - rather it's to stop the app from spazzing out and using 100% CPU during dragging/resizing. That would be the natural consequence of an app redrawing a complex window for each Expose event.
It looks like Mozilla took the easier approach, to postpone the redraw completely until the Expose events stop coming. That works fine with profile (non opaque) window dragging, but in combination with opaque dragging it causes smearing. On each Expose event, the app should at least fill the window with its background color, which is almost instantaneous. That will override the smearing.
Using the method described in my previoius comment will draw as much of the display list as the app has time for, improving the realism of the drag metaphor at some expense in CPU utilization.
Those people from XFree got fed up with the X server not being noticed by anyone. Linux this, linux that, you know, the SCO stuff giving Linux publicity, but nobody says anything about X. Not a word. And they got fed up with this. Like RMS who always was crying loud: NOT LINUX, GNU/Linux. Because Linux is not Linux. It is at least GNU/Linux/XFree/BSD-stuff/something-else.
You can defy gravity... for a short time
Who needs X? I have screen :)
-sig- It's not stupid, it's advanced -sig-
Don't worry, we already had integrate part of your work on VIA driver in Mdk 9.2 and we will finish integration for 10.0
Y: A Successor to the X Window System
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mbt99/Y/
Yeah I remember when I had a 486 DX2-66 and I tried dragging xterms around I used to get some bad redraw stuff happening. Sometimes I'd even get artifacts that would stay behind after the window had passed on.
What you have to do, dude, is get yourself another computer. I just performed your Window Drag Test (TM) and found that my windows drag around perfectly, as I seem to remember them doing for the past 5 years.
When people first sit down in front of a Linux computer, they don't do your patented fuck-tard test. "And it's killing us". Yeah right. I'm dying over here. My fucking 486 won't drag around my xterm across my twm desktop at an acceptable rate.
Tosspot.
Sorry to rain in your parade, nothing but scrupulous full adherance to licenses is going to keep OSS projects on the clear from a legal point of view.
/. , otherwise you would know why this is important and not only purposeless nitpicking.
Obviously you have SCO filtered out in
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too. "
ssooo, wwhat? A GPL-compatible license, is compatible with the GPL, if it permits the GPL to come out as the favored license over the two?
More over, I'm really not starting to see what's this fuss about Xfree v1.1 license not beeing compatible with the GPL ... as all Xfree stipulates in 3/4'ths of their conditions is that you "give credit where credit is due" and "ask for writen authorization for using *this --> 'The XFree86 Project, Inc' <-- name in 'advertisement' xor 'promotion of sale(s)'". It doesn't in any other way, stipulate any other conditions YOU have to abide by.
And I really can't see how it can't/couldn't be 100% compatible with the GPL (in full sense, that the GPL would coume out as the favoured license, and xfree's license more of a sub-license *of somesort, one has to abide by in addition to the GPL*)
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
I looked at the thread regarding Xfree on Cgywin and was amazed at the attitude of the core developers, especially David Dawes.
As many others have said, David Dawes is a liability - no matter how good the coder, if lead developers have poor attitudes (or in this case, APPALLING), the project is doomed whether it be closed or open source.
Congratulations to the various distros and developers such as Keith Packard for saying enough is enough - in the long term we'll all benefit from this.
When I look at the two versions of the licenses at http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html I cannot really see what is so bad about the new license. And why would the new one be incompatible with the GPL? Why is it such a bad thing to modify the license like that?
I didn't say "Learn English properly", I said "Learn to use English properly."
How were you modded Insightful? You should have been modded Flamebait for attempting to fix something that wasn't broken.
I hate the moderation system.
evil adrian
Every decent program already has copyright information displayed or in documentation. Why the hell Linux vendors would want to hide they are using XFree? These guys don't ask you to call Linux XFree/Linux. They don't distribute their software with licencse without advertising clauses, and don't tell you you are bad guy if you don't change the name of your software, they tell you in advance what they want. I think it is a good thing to do, if you make profit distributing software created by volunteers free work, giving credit to people that deserve that won't bancrupt you!
With all due respect, you hack on whatever you want. But don't you think it would be better to work on a more current video chipset (ie one that is still being manufactured) ? There must a ton of Voodoo 2 card out there, but they are slowly falling out of use. IMHO, your precious hacking time would be better spent on (for example) reverse enginnering the GF2 or GF4 to get some level of Open-Source support for this very common chipset. Or improving the Open-Source Radeon 8500 driver.
Do get me wrong; I know in the end, you owe me nothing and are totally free to work on whatever suit your fancy. I'm just looking for the best investment possible for my 0.02$.
:wq
OK, I just tried your test using MS-Windows.
I didn't get your "smearing", but I got a lot of "jumping" and "ghosting", i.e., subsequent images of the window would appear in new postions dozens of pixels away from the previous images, while the previous images remained on-screen for several tenths of a second.
In addition, sometimes the previous images remained on the wallpaper indefinitely, until I released the mouse button and moved the pointer over the wallpaper (i.e., off of any window).
And this was with an empty Notepad window!
So, you see, MS-Windows has similar problems.
Note that I encounter the previous-images-on-wallpaper thing frequently, so I am very used to moving my mouse onto the wallpaper to get rid of the images; it's almost automatic.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
I've never understood why the FSF continue to put up with X being under a non-GPL license.
If we have to have an entire superfluous desktop environment project (GNOME) just to maintain the purity of everything being under the GPL, how come there's no GPL implementation of X?
Maybe Stallman uses a dumb terminal and screen.
Actually, he probably just uses a dumb terminal and a re-implementation of screen written in emacs lisp...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
how come this is not flamebait?
the license is a problem. Even if some people have trouble understanding why. My answer would be, YANAL...
But they are linked together!
So fucking what? GNOME still doesn't contain any XFree code. But let's pretend I'm wrong. What are the consequences? Suppose you make a three line GNOME applet. Can you distribute the binaries? If your applet indeed "contains" GNOME inside, then you can only distribute it together with the entirety of GNOME. Good luck.
But GNOME is itself GPLed!
So fucking what? Nowhere does the GPL say "...unless those parts of your program that you don't distribute are themselves licensed under the GPL and are freely downloadable from teh Intarweb".It's amazing how supposedly intelligent developers can't parse a short stretch of mostly plain English that is the GPL.
Yay DirectFB!
+++ATH0
if he wants everyone to call it 'gnu/linux' then why is xfree wrong to want people to remember that xfree wrote it?
There are a thousand different setups and you have one that smears. Crazily enough I do sometimes get it under windows with explorer when a explorer window is busy.
So to everyone who doesn't have the problem you are a flamebait. To everyone who does have it your post is insightfull. Get the picture?
However consider this, to everyone who has the smearing but like the fact you can the X server way of allowing an ap to run on a remote machine, I do I run my java aps that way to save memory on my desktop, you post is a total troll. They accept any slowness for the extra features that X offers. No you may never use it. Others do.
Stop trying to think that slashdot is your vocal group and that everyone who disagrees is wrong. You may simply be having different expetations.
But what I really hate the most is people who want to change X. If you don't like it drop it and use another solution. There are some alternatives being developed. They are useless to me since I use all the features of X but they might be just what you want. These alternatives are not going to anywhere if people like you keep bitching that X should change instead of trying these alternatives and helping them develop.
What's even more important IMHO, is that if the community wants to redesign or do a major change in the graphics subsystem layer, it should be done NOW, before Linux desktop becomes widely used. Just look at the serial and parallel ports at the back of your computer.
The Linux "graphics subsystem layer" is clearly specified by the X11 protocol and its defined extension (SHM, RENDER, etc.). That's not going to change. The existing protocol is quite good and there simply is no reasonable alternative around, not even a reasonable design for an alternative.
XFree86 is just one implementation of many of the X11 protocols. If the XFree86 implementation disappared (like it may if the license problems are real), then some other X11 server would replace it. The troubles of one implementation of X11 are not going to have much impact. That's, after all, one of the strengths of standards-based systems.
No really, XFree86 situation seems to be a mess at the moment, let's hope that interested parties (developers from KDE, GNOME, QT, Mandrake, RedHat, IBM etc.) will use it to reach a consensus on the whole desktop thing. It's now or never.
The consensus is here: it's X11 with RENDER, and it isn't going to change. So, that means: it's never. Whether you like it or not, you better get used to it.
Actually, Quartz does not draw line by line. Quartz preserves a bitmap of each window, and when something damages the contents of the window, restores the image from that bitmap. This takes up tons of memory (need window buffers even if window is hidden) but eliminates any streaking.
Let me add to this that you can enable this behavior on most X11 servers as well (including XFree86); it's called "backing store". It's not enabled by default because, traditionally, X11 users preferred more graphics memory to faster redraws.
Furthermore, any distribution with Macintosh-like aspirations could just enable this feature by default if they liked; the user would never have to think about it. Maybe Mandrake and RedHat should do that so that newbies stop complaining about it.
This is a bit off-topic, but what happened to X10 (not the camera company), X9, X8, etc.? And will there ever be an X12 or X13? Or what about an X11R7?
X10 did indeed exist. They changed the major version number to 11 because the protocol changed incompatibly. X10 was quite usable and very similar to X11, but it had a number of annoying limitations.
I don't know of any released or usable versions prior to X10 (keep in mind that, traditionally, MIT projects didn't use major and minor numbers for their software, but just integers, so 10 isn't that high a version number).
I doubt that there will be an X12. There doesn't seem to be any reason at this point to change the protocol incompatibly since X11 is quite general; most likely, all further changes to the protocol will be implemented as extensions or additions.
Basically, yes, because the motivations and effects of the licenses are different. X86Free license clause is meant to get attribution for the developers. GPL is designed to avoid a non-free version of the soft to become dominant and replace the free one. The second one is beneficial to me, Turingtest, as a user; the first one is not.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
1600x1200 on 15" LCD?? Wooo...
you must have very good eye sight and I bet you can barly see the "X" icon for closing a window
While the "distro" community sorts all this stuff out, I think I'll just ease back in my chair with a bottle of Shiner, start the 4.4 compile/build, and have a pinch of Skoal in the ready...
"Distro"? Sounds to much like "destructro" anyways...here's your aspirin
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku