Not to say xfree86 4.0 is inferior to Xi, this is only speculation..
To the question: Why bother?
With X and in general, "supported" and "unsupported" isn't as simple as it sounds. It's the EXTENT of support that is relevant, as well as the speed of the X server. It's very likely that even a fine peice of software like XFree86 4.0 may lack some features high-end CAD users want. Not all video cards may be taken fully advantage of, and some 3d features could be missing. Sad but true: some of the proprieatary chipsets are not well supported by free software projects because the hardware makers require non-disclosure agreements to procure spec.
When it comes down to it, there is room for Xi competing with XFree86. Let's home XFree86 4 does pull through as the established powerful 3d X server, as we all prefer the free to the non-free software.:)
This brings up an interesting issue. OSS has been a great move for free software, making a definitive difference. Your point however, is a good one: let's not loose sight of GPL. OSS is good, [L]GPL is better. Distributing software between licenses isn't legal unless they have the same license, or a BSD license.
That's why an LGPL library, like gtk+ is still more desirable than regular OSS - you can use the code in your own free projects. QPT'd code won't be very useful to anyone. Troll Tech needs to GPL Qt, since it would play such an integral part the system.
A good rule of thumb, IMO, is to allow programs/applications/libraries to be OSS, so long as they aren't integral to the system. If they are, GPL/LGPL should be required.
Saying "GPL should 'never' should be used for libraries" isn't a very accurate statement. LGPL -is- GPL with some exceptions for proprietary software linking.
However, Troll releasing GPL would infact be closer to what they're doing, and drive free software even harrder, but not allowing proprietary software to be compiled for KDE...
However, LGPL would - for the time being - be more desirble, to attract proprietary authors to GPL software. In the future, of course, all software should be GPL.
You have to look at the perspective, just like he did.
Look at his perspective. His mission in life is to abolish all PCs, but simply, because he doesn't like them (it's true, look on his page - he's an admitted zealot). As a zealot, but not a 100% Fudster, he'll using anything if it had a shred of evidence to support him sretched out five times long. This guy will make a benchmark proclaiming a Mac peice of software faster than a PC peice of software if he can find one function that shows it, and use that function to prove it, even if every single other functions is faster on the PC.
He provides an interesting opinion, and represents the zealots of the Mac community, but trusting him on accuracy is like trusting a politician on honesty. It's a grave mistake.
That's the frame of reference. Now realize he didn't actually back up anything he said with fact. He's FUDDING... pure and simple.
I'd like to point out however, we have one of the FEW gov't's in the world that readily accepts freedom of speech, etc... So the SC rules on civil liberty down. How many do you have?
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that you'd be in a horse and carrage, using an out house, and not know about electricity without Americans. You'd be primitive enough not to know what computer algorithms are.
Intellectual property is an oximoron. It's a contradiction of basic human rights. Saying one should be able to own a thought, something non-tangible, is a lie planted by a very few who wish to control society.
Incase you aren't aware of this, software patents are not used by small developers edging into the market. Their purpose is to forward the Microsofts and Apples of the world in squashing the Linuxes and FreeBSDs of the world.
Software patents are all bad, unconditionally. It's stupid to patent a book, a painting, and yes, an algorythm. Imagin paying royalties everytime you added numbers or thought of a squar root in your head.
Let's face it, this is a Microsoft win. The Supreme Court makes some good decisions (CDA) and some that make you question of Supreme Court members are really smarter than the average lab monkey.
No, it's not the court that decides if a law if fair, just interprets that law. And it's pretty damned obvious that patent law doesn't include algorithms, and algorthyms are damned well free speech.
It's a clear contradiction that something can be both patented and copyrighted. It's so obvious, that I'm prone to suspect bribes could have been involved, because generally that court doesn't rule wrongly on incontrovertible cases like this one.
Damn them all. Boycott all companies that ever patented software. That's inexcuseable. To hell with 'em. Maybe we should all move to Sweden, where IQ's are in the positive range on this matter.
It's high-time consumers wisen up and boycott scams like DVD and the Minidisk. The only acceptable Divx technology is the one that breaks it, and makes it possible to pirate.
I used to not think highly of copying music, art, etc. Things have changed, and corporate America is sueing baseball camps for singing songs - freedom of speech.
It's time freedom of speech outlawed the copyright altogether.
That's a good idea. Let's just make the whole image, and change that whole image depending on where the mouse is.
You NEVER use images for replacement forms, and you NEVER use Java* because is proprietary non-standard garbage.
If your page isn't 100% usable on Lynx, it's not worthy of the web. No web page should -ever- use JavaScript or Java. Standards, people, think standards.
You can't assume that the browser is anything - anything. You have to assume it's Lynx - IE - Netscape - any of the new browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
To the question: Why bother?
With X and in general, "supported" and "unsupported" isn't as simple as it sounds. It's the EXTENT of support that is relevant, as well as the speed of the X server. It's very likely that even a fine peice of software like XFree86 4.0 may lack some features high-end CAD users want. Not all video cards may be taken fully advantage of, and some 3d features could be missing. Sad but true: some of the proprieatary chipsets are not well supported by free software projects because the hardware makers require non-disclosure agreements to procure spec.
When it comes down to it, there is room for Xi competing with XFree86. Let's home XFree86 4 does pull through as the established powerful 3d X server, as we all prefer the free to the non-free software.
To free software!
This brings up an interesting issue. OSS has been a great move for free software, making a definitive difference. Your point however, is a good one: let's not loose sight of GPL. OSS is good, [L]GPL is better. Distributing software between licenses isn't legal unless they have the same license, or a BSD license.
That's why an LGPL library, like gtk+ is still more desirable than regular OSS - you can use the code in your own free projects. QPT'd code won't be very useful to anyone. Troll Tech needs to GPL Qt, since it would play such an integral part the system.
A good rule of thumb, IMO, is to allow programs/applications/libraries to be OSS, so long as they aren't integral to the system. If they are, GPL/LGPL should be required.
Saying "GPL should 'never' should be used for libraries" isn't a very accurate statement. LGPL -is- GPL with some exceptions for proprietary software linking.
However, Troll releasing GPL would infact be closer to what they're doing, and drive free software even harrder, but not allowing proprietary software to be compiled for KDE...
However, LGPL would - for the time being - be more desirble, to attract proprietary authors to GPL software. In the future, of course, all software should be GPL.
You have to look at the perspective, just like he did.
Look at his perspective. His mission in life is to abolish all PCs, but simply, because he doesn't like them (it's true, look on his page - he's an admitted zealot). As a zealot, but not a 100% Fudster, he'll using anything if it had a shred of evidence to support him sretched out five times long. This guy will make a benchmark proclaiming a Mac peice of software faster than a PC peice of software if he can find one function that shows it, and use that function to prove it, even if every single other functions is faster on the PC.
He provides an interesting opinion, and represents the zealots of the Mac community, but trusting him on accuracy is like trusting a politician on honesty. It's a grave mistake.
That's the frame of reference. Now realize he didn't actually back up anything he said with fact. He's FUDDING... pure and simple.
EXCUSE ME. Okay, our Supreme Court blunders.
I'd like to point out however, we have one of the FEW gov't's in the world that readily accepts freedom of speech, etc... So the SC rules on civil liberty down. How many do you have?
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that you'd be in a horse and carrage, using an out house, and not know about electricity without Americans. You'd be primitive enough not to know what computer algorithms are.
Intellectual property is an oximoron. It's a contradiction of basic human rights. Saying one should be able to own a thought, something non-tangible, is a lie planted by a very few who wish to control society.
Intellectual Property... Absolute bullshit.
Incase you aren't aware of this, software patents are not used by small developers edging into the market. Their purpose is to forward the Microsofts and Apples of the world in squashing the Linuxes and FreeBSDs of the world.
Software patents are all bad, unconditionally. It's stupid to patent a book, a painting, and yes, an algorythm. Imagin paying royalties everytime you added numbers or thought of a squar root in your head.
Let's face it, this is a Microsoft win. The Supreme Court makes some good decisions (CDA) and some that make you question of Supreme Court members are really smarter than the average lab monkey.
No, it's not the court that decides if a law if fair, just interprets that law. And it's pretty damned obvious that patent law doesn't include algorithms, and algorthyms are damned well free speech.
It's a clear contradiction that something can be both patented and copyrighted. It's so obvious, that I'm prone to suspect bribes could have been involved, because generally that court doesn't rule wrongly on incontrovertible cases like this one.
Damn them all. Boycott all companies that ever patented software. That's inexcuseable. To hell with 'em. Maybe we should all move to Sweden, where IQ's are in the positive range on this matter.
The beverage coaster market has shown feirce competition that AOL worked hard to overcome -- CompuPerv, Proctology Internet, etc...
Do you think Circuit shitty can overcome them?
(Pretty good aliases, eh?)
It's high-time consumers wisen up and boycott scams like DVD and the Minidisk. The only acceptable Divx technology is the one that breaks it, and makes it possible to pirate.
I used to not think highly of copying music, art, etc. Things have changed, and corporate America is sueing baseball camps for singing songs - freedom of speech.
It's time freedom of speech outlawed the copyright altogether.
Themable in compliance with the OS. Indeed! The "look and feel" of an OS ought to be decided on by the browser (aham! colors too) and OS...
HTML 1.0 produces more reabable web pages than any other version because the browser actually decides the look/feel - how life ought to be.
That's a good idea. Let's just make the whole image, and change that whole image depending on where the mouse is.
You NEVER use images for replacement forms, and you NEVER use Java* because is proprietary non-standard garbage.
If your page isn't 100% usable on Lynx, it's not worthy of the web. No web page should -ever- use JavaScript or Java. Standards, people, think standards.
You can't assume that the browser is anything - anything. You have to assume it's Lynx - IE - Netscape - any of the new browsers.