Re: [forum] Move X definition to IETF?
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Dana ponedeljak 24. mart 2003. 19:13, Jim.Gettys@hp.com je napisao/la: > The IETF, with only a few exceptions, does not standardize > API's; it generally only works on wire protocols. > - Jim > > > Sender: forum-admin@XFree86.Org > > From: Ed Warnicke <email@example.com> > > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:23:38 -0500 > > To: forum@XFree86.Org > > Subject: [forum] Move X definition to IETF? > > ----- > > There has been some comment in this forum about the > > need to split the definition of X ( which used to > > reside with X.org ) from the implementation of > > X ( XFree86.org ). Might it not be a good idea to > > try to move the definition of X over to the IETF? > > > > X is, afterall, a network protocol. The IETF is > > arguably the most successful standards body for > > the definition of network protocols in history. > > > > Also, the IETF is extremely open, which seems to > > be something that X.org lacked, and which folks > > are complaining about in XFree86. > It doesn't really mather whether it will or it won't be moved. I can see IMHO, that here people are arguing about everything, and thats good, a lot of posts -> a lot of ideas. However, I haven't seen any idea how to improve speed. Speed is the very first thing which needs to be revised. I hate to see on my KT400 mobo with R9000, window which apears with 0.5-1 sec delay, and there is no disk I/O or something like that. From my end-user point of view, I think X is good but slow. Some people will say but you have remote this ability, remote that... Face it guys, over 75% of users doesn't even know of such possibility, of the 25% who know half of them have no need of such a thing. IMHO, there should be, 4.X.X branch which will produce bugfixes, drivers, etc. for 4.X.X tree, and 5.0 branch should be formed, which will start from almost zero, trying to develop, fastest windowing system for local use, and of course, provide same things as 4.X.X about remote stuff. Of course 5.0 should have pandan for DirectX, and it would be IMHO wise to integrate sound support too, for multimedia at one place. -- Pozdrav, TanaskoviÄ Toplica
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]