Re: Discussing issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]




On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:27:12PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: 
> In your example, what's stopping people developing for STSF or fontconfig ?
> 
> In my eyes, nothing. I don't understand why your asking for some stake
> in the ground to say this is the one we're backing. The backing of a
> piece of code comes from it's developers of that code. Sun is obviously
> heading down the STSF route whereas others are using fontconfig. One will
> win on it's merits of the people using the code. Heck, STSF doesn't even
> exist in XFree86's tree, yet people are still using it. Just because it
> doesn't exist in XFree86's CVS doesn't mean that it's right or the
> best implementation.

I'll go through my line of thinking in more detail to try and see
exactly where we're diverging.

One thing I'm interested in is pulling together a set of components
and saying "this is the base GUI platform for X11/UNIX." I'm also
interested in growing the scope of that platform over time.

Sure, some people will always develop stuff that doesn't end up in the
platform, and use things that aren't in it. That's great, it means
there's lots of interest and experimentation. I'm all for it.

However, I think a significant group of people and organizations
(including the major desktops and OS vendors) see the value and need
for a shared platform, and are willing to sacrifice some of their
other interests and compromise on the details to get there.

Creating a shared platform means not only including things, but also
excluding/deprecating things. We can't have 6 font subsystems, that
defeats the purpose - it would keep applications from adopting any of
them.

Creating a shared platform also means shared implementation work, not
just shared specification/decision-making work. As I said back in the
X.org thread, I don't like the idea of standards isolated from
implementation.

So if the goal is shared platform, and we're going to keep the
spec/standards for our platform as rubber-stamp outgrowths of the
implementation, the implication is that the implementation project has
to own the definition of the platform.

That in turn implies that the implementation project has to make
decisions such as the fontconfig/STSF decision, and has to have a
mechanism for doing so.

Finally, a shared platform has to share some kind of releases or
versioning, or even though the platform is synced up on any given day,
vendors are all shipping a different snapshot and so real-world
systems are not synced up.

If you walk through my line of thinking above, at what specific point
do we disagree?

David's mail about distributions rolling their own releases implied to
me that he does not want to own the component list or release schedule
for this kind of platform. David, I could have interpreted your mail
wrongly, please say so if I did.

Havoc
 
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@XFree86.Org
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]


  Powered by Linux