AW: Improving Xorg

martinb at martinb at
Thu Jun 29 07:25:27 PDT 2006

> > Not even that, I'd be happy enough, just if the provided build scripts
> (for a complete build) came close to "matching reality".
> >
> > But nothing works, not even the tar archives have the same name, as the
> script is looking for.
> > It's two weeks ago, so ask me for details and I'm well willing to
> reproduce the whole scenario, for being able to provide precise details.
> >
> > When I fixed those things by hand, configure took years for every of the
> subfolders.
> > The modularization means heavily increasing the costs to build (time).
> >
> > Then this and that and whatever failed every few minutes.
> > I believe (not sure) even a selfbuilt utility used for the build was
> segfaulting and therefore breaking the build yet another time.
> > I'm not only confused, but also disappointed from the modular thing (7.0
> and 7.1).
> >
> >
> > But it looks like Alan Cox doesn't appreciate my comments, indirectly
> calling me something near to a troll.
> >
> > So I may switch back to XFree86 in the end, where all the sparc folks
> still reside and produce, other than here.
> You could perhaps fix to build on solaris sparc, I don't think
> anyone else here had tried to do this yet, it builds on Linux Sparc

I will.
Documented Patch afterwards.
But not this or next week, due to other projects I'm involved in.

> I'm nearly sure as someone here cared about it  I assume, we aren't
> XFree86 we have a different direction, and one of those is we aren't
> going to hold back waiting for other architectures/OSes to catch
> up, if you enjoy building XFree86 and you enjoy using their
> implementation of X, then please do so we are not forcing you to use
>, however we are endeavouring to move forward not back.


> And what Alan pointed out was your rant to that slightly misdirected
> mail about the MS thing, when someone mails an mailing list with
> a query and gets a rant from someone who has posted once to the list
> before it gives a bad view of the community as a whole.

I don't quite agree: First of all was that mail so _completely_ odd / misdirected.
I - on the other hand - did not rant that person. But started arguing. By means of true arguments I mean. The difference to many other people is, that I _know_ why I'm upset with M$. Part for part can I talk about - and also prove - this in x86 16bit and 32 bit DOS-assembly. From the documented things like the AARD code, to the undocumented things I found myself, when analyzing the "glue" sitting between MS-DOS 7.x and Win4.X aka Win9x.
The only mistake I made - and I already apologized for it was, that I started a combination of responding too verbosely (given that the topic was ways OT) and kind of giving lectures about the MS-DOS/Win relationship, X11 for DOS and such.
This was the only mistake I see.
I was rather polite to that person, taking into account he didn't at all answer my question, where he sees the connection between Xorg and his MScoder magazine.
I did not say "Go away troll!".
I _asked_ where he sees a potential connection and gave time to argue on that.
But he didn't answer, but started flaming instead.
What a strange happening, I didn't believe my eyes at first    :)

> Thanks,
> Dave.


More information about the xorg mailing list