Timothy Murphy wrote:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 16:17, Z wrote:
I can't remember if FC1 was the first one to use xorg-x11 rather than
XF86. If it was,
No, FC2 was the first to take this disastrous step.
That's a joke, right?
Not at all.
It was my experience with XFree86 that when bugs were encountered -
and any system will encounter bugs -
correcting patches were applied as soon as they were provided.
As I have pointed out, a patch was provided almost 6 monts ago
for a serious bug in the ATI driver,
which effectively meant that X could not be used
on a range of Sony Picturebooks.
The fact that Xorg works perfectly on your computer,
which you seem to take as proof of its all-round excellence,
is neither here nor there.
The issue is, what system is in hand for takiing corrective action
when bugs are found, and is it working properly.
My experience is that it is not working properly at the moment,
and my reading of the xorg mailing list
does not give me confidence that it will work well in the future.
But the old XFree was worse by orders of magnitude. I was applying a
patch, from one of the OFFICIAL
XFree developers, for almost a year to get dual-head on my board. It
took _months_ for the thing to even
be commited to CVS. The patch missed the "oficial" release by days, and
I had to sit and wait while the jerks
at the Xfree board (including one that, by his own admission, hadn't
been a _USER_ for several _YEARS_)
took their sweet time to expell Keith Packard from the group and revoke
his CVS commit
privilege.
Nobody is crying the demise of XFree. Maybe you aren't aware of the
sordid past actions and unresponsiveness of the group.
Z