Xorg 1.5 missed the train?

[Les Mikesell]

Bill Crawford wrote:

>> No, the point is that it is a pre-release version of X, shipped will full
>> knowledge that it will break binary drivers that no reasonable person would
>> expect to be modified to match yet.
> 
> I don't know where to start with the logical fallacies in this but ...
> 
> It's not "prerelease" in any sense except "the release not hasn't gone
> out yet". 

What is it that would suggest that it is finalized to a manager that 
might want to commit resources to writing a driver his company will have 
to support?

> The upstream developers want this shipped, and have decided
> the ABI is complete. It could have been labelled "1.5" and the same
> thing would still be happening.

No, it wouldn't be the same if that label had been applied and announced 
publicly in time for others to coordinate with a shipping date.

> It doesn't "break" binary drivers. Binary drivers compiled to work
> with an older version need modification to work correctly with it,

Errr, how is that different from breaking?  Interfaces work or not.

> This means that in actual fact, you are complaining (loudly) about the
> failure of nVidia to provide updated drivers for you new distribution,
> and expect "us" to provide "you" with a Fedora 9 but without the new
> graphics functionality which apparently a lot of people want.

All I expect is a reasonable chance for others to coordinate.  This is 
like shipping a power cord with a new plug style before announcing the 
matching standard for the socket where you are supposed to plug it in.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com