On Don, 2003-03-20 at 17:29, indy@THE-TECH.MIT.EDU wrote: > > 1) Many Linux distros (and even more users) are running a less than current > version of Xfree. If more developers are being looked at, tasking some of them > to look after whatever version is the commonly installed version (when it is > not the latest and greatest) could be a boon, both for users and the > perception of Xfree itself. Good idea, I think we could use frequent bugfix releases, in particular now that a bunch of more or less serious problems seem to have crept into 4.3.0. > - (To Reiterate Ruth Ivimey-Cook) Hot plugging of mouse in particular > is something which everyone notices. The Linux kernel will (in 2.6, and already does partly in 2.4) provide this in a way that is backwards compatible and transparent to userland. > - Simplyfying and improving font support. Making fonts look better makes > Xfree as a project look better and makes users happy. New releases have > improved the look of things, but we're not there yet. This is an issue of > importance beyond Xfree. Making text more readable on a monitor is probably > one of the most important things left in integrating computers further into > human society. A really special target, when you think about it. > > - Fonts also desparately need to be simple to install. > One part of having a graphic desktop is to do things > with graphics, including graphics of words. Pro designers won't touch > Xfree based systems until font support is easy, neither will Grandma > who wants to make Christmas cards. Easy font support probably involves > talking to commercial font houses to make it easier for them to produce > (and sell ;( ) fonts for Xfree based systems. I think Xft and fontconfig address these quite adequately already. > - Translucency is a big complaint amongst users, so it probably can't > be ignored, but don't let important things like memory handling and usage or > general speed be forgotten. Are these really important issues? As an example, a Mac OS X and casual Linux user (as opposed to a Linux and casual Mac OS X user like me :) recently asked me why X was 'slower' than Aqua, when in fact it's quite clearly faster in general, and what bothered him was the difference in smoothness. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast