[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Xorg 1.5 missed the train?



2008/5/21 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell gmail com>:
> Bill Crawford wrote:

>> So why should "Fedora" commit to supporting "binary driver Foo" before
>> their release is ready?
>
> That has nothing to do with what I said.  I'm suggesting that fedora should
> ship with interfaces that are publicized as standard, and allow time for
> changes in this standard to propagate before shipping something different
> from the standard.  This has nothing to do with supporting anything or
> anyone.  It is common decency in interaction.

So in other words, Fedora must always be ... what, at least six months
behind the times, or something?

>> You keep saying "publicly" but for the company concerned, who will
>> have to make their driver work with the ABI in question, it being in
>> the X server code base and discussed on the mailing lists (which they
>> do have access to) is reasonable enough information for them to go on.
>
> Do you have the authority to speak for them?  It just does not sound like a
> reasonable business decision to expect anyone to make.

Huh? I'm pointing out that they speak for themselves. You're just
making argument for the sake of it now. Why should anyone be held
hostage to nVidia's "business decisions"? Least of all the people
developing the X server, who manage to work quite well with others.
Not their fault if a certain company won't play well.

>> It's very different. The driver concerned will continue to work with
>> the server ABI it was built to work with. Noone has mandated that
>> every X11 server in the world be updated tomorrow night at midnight!
>
> If you mean that, you shouldn't be shipping one that makes this demand.

Uh ... "I" am not doing any such thing; and in case, "Fedora" is not
making any such demand by shipping this. If "you" choose to update,
that's your decision, not Fedora's. Nowhere is anyone mandating that
all X11 servers be updated (and your sentence above demonstrates
either a deliberate refusal to understand, or a real nerve).

> Unless you install fedora, which doesn't mention that it shipped a
> pre-release.

It's quite apparent that the situation would still have arisen even if
1.5 had made the release date for Fedora, as mentioned elsewhere in
this thread was a claim that nVidia want to see the new thing shipped
on a distro before committing to it. So, this is now irrelevant for
the discussion (because it does not materially change the outcome of
the drivers not being ready at F9 release time).

Thanks, you just made the discussion easier.

>> Not so. In particular, noone is forcing you to change the existing
>> sockets, and the new design was settled on quite some time ago. The
>> people producing the plug are well aware of this process and have
>> chosen to not update their plug design to match yet, ... and I have
>> really had enough of these analogies even if you haven't.
>
> It's not typical to update products to match a new standard before the
> standard in question is finalized, wireless-N notwithstanding.

This has been answered elsewhere already.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]