Xorg 1.5 missed the train?

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May 21, 2008, "Christopher Stone" <chris.stone at gmail.com> wrote:

> I really don't expect an xorg build for every binary blob out
> there, but a stable version of xorg as an alternative for those who
> are having problems with the beta version should have been given more
> consideration in my opinion.

This argument is facetious, and it drives the blame in the wrong
direction.

What does 'beta version' have to do with it?  If it just so happened
that X *had* released what Fedora ships as a stable version before
Fedora 9, what would this have changed?

Nothing.  Nothing whatsoever.  You'd still be stuck with a non-Free
driver that doesn't work with the latest stable release.

Therefore, using the terms 'stable version' and 'beta version' is a
distraction, and attempt to shift the blame through the underlying
implications of these terms.

I suggest from this point on you use terms such as '{,in}compatible
with the non-Free driver I'd like to use'.  This will put things in
the right perspective.

You may still find reason to blame Fedora for apparently disregarding
users trapped by nvidia's non-Free drivers, but really, whose fault is
it that you depend on nvidia to get your graphics to work the way you
want on the release of Fedora you want to use?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member       ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}