-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tom Evans wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 20:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Julian Stecklina wrote: >>> Chuck Robey <chuckr_at_telenix.org> writes: >>> >>>> Tell me, I haven't followed much of the history about Xfree86 the last few years >>>> (far more concerned with serious health problems), do you know why there aren't >>>> any Xfree86 ports in our ports anymore? I checked, they ARE releasing new >>>> software, it works, it actually builds far, far faster/easier, howcome our ports >>>> are ignoring Xfree86 in favor of Xorg? Not being fascetious here, I really >>>> don't know. I'm thinking I would like to experiment to see if the Xfree86 stuff >>>> works for my mouse better, but I would really rather use our ports, than getting >>>> a release directly from XFree86 (I don't think they even have FreeBSD binaries >>>> anymore). >>> I guess since the license fight that caused the fork most consider >>> XFree86 obsolete. It is said that most development takes place in X.org >>> at the moment. License fight? License fight? Ohoh, didn't know about that. When I see a license fight on the road ahead, I treat it like any other outbreak of black plague. If that's the only thing, I can just install XFree86 for myself, it's a trivial buid, and never get dragged into a license fight. Best of all possible worlds, bcnu. >>> >>> Regards, >> That can't possibly be the *entire* reason for the disappearance of all of the >> XFree86 ports, is it? Even the device ports (the ones with Xfree86 still in the >> naming of the ports) has no Xfree86 code in it anymore. I would be astonished >> if that were really true ... because I downloaded the code from there about 3 >> months back, and was astonished that it built without one single glitch, needing >> only one change (to make it go to the directory I wanted it to). Not one >> problem in building, a classic "trivial" build, it seemed to work fine also, and >> it built SO much faster and simpler. It can't just have been erased due to >> someone's prejudice, could it? > > No, the were lots of other serious issues that annoyed 90% of the > XFree86 developers, see [1], [2]. The license issue was just the straw > that broke the camel's back. The ports named 'xf86-*' have nothing to do > with XFree86; they are solely xorg drivers. > >> Damn, that would be disappointing, if it were true. Luckily, it's builds so >> trivially, it doesn['t even need a port, really. As long as it hasn't changed >> greatly from 90 days ago ... >> >> However, the reason I got onto this was because of my mouse's jerkiness, and >> since I changed the my scheduler from SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD, that part's >> improved also, so I have no longer got any huge reason to push this anymore. >> Things are now working so well, I think I'll disappear now ... > > That's fair enough, but literally no-one uses XFree86 any more. At all. > So if you have weird interaction with your mouse on FreeBSD in XFree86, > virtually no people will have a comparable system, or knowledge of > issues.. > > Cheers > > Tom > > [1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html > [2] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmm1rYACgkQz62J6PPcoOnrRwCfYvvZ0QhrJQ3Z8hsAXFo0qQj1 eLkAn2o1IjP0rotV59GhQngfBpjE+5Kj =eEDz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Received on Thu Feb 26 2009 - 17:01:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:42 UTC