Mr. Alan Cox, Sir: I'm waiting for you to apologize. __/__ WAS: Re: Re: AW: Improving Xorg

martinb at martinb at
Thu Jun 29 07:40:53 PDT 2006

Aha, that's pretty damn interesting:
### Posting to the ML did work this third time. ###

It does not work - however - when I try to post from my original e-mail address mb1x at !

Here is what I got:


From:	xorg-bounces at	ins Adressbuch
mb1x at
Subject:	Your message to xorg awaits moderator approval
Date:	Thu, 29. Jun 2006 07:17:32 -0700

Your mail to 'xorg' with the subject

    Re: Re: AW: Improving Xorg

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

    Post to moderated list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision.  If you would like to cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:


So somebody (the Xorg list moderator) put me onto the blacklist!
This certainly has to do with my earlier postings.

Something seems to be heavily damn wrong here.
And with Alan Cox.

So Dave Airlie, you probably didn't have a clue of how things obviously seem to be handled here.
Now we do.

And I shall work for those ******** ?
BTW, how do "they" define openness?????
I thought, the whole world is moving to Xorg because of its "openness"?!


Message I originally tried to post below:

> > 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