RE: history, vision, and politics

["Dr. Rich Murphey" <Rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: forum-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:forum-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Coopersmith
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:17 AM
> To: xf86gee@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  history, vision, and politics
> 
> georgina o. economou wrote:
>  > I am speaking about the differece between XF86 and your 
> projects is that XF86  > is self-sustaining because it is 
> driven by committment and vision, not dollars  > and cents. 
> That's what you have to have, and if everyone is there just 
> because  > they are paid to,  well when the jobs/money stop 
> so does the project.
> 
> The X.Org Foundation is just like XFree86 in this respect - 
> some people are volunteers, others are involved because their 
> employer supports them.  Some people, like me, would continue 
> on, though obviously less active, even if their employer 
> stopped supporting the work or they stopped working for their 
> current employer.
> 
> 	-Alan Coopersmith-           alan.coopersmith@xxxxxxx
> 	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
> 

Yea, X.org and XFree86 are alike -- we both require approval from Sun, HP
and The Open Group's lawyers for our organizational documents.  Not!

Let's face it, XFree86 has the balls to tell vendors to piss off if they
disagree on developer centric vision or actions.  That, my friend, is
independence that Keith and Jim don't have.  That much should be clear at
this point.  Let's see you guys tell Sun or HP or TOG's lawyers to piss off.

Jeez, Keith and Jim know very well what happened with the XC and how it
turned into 'pact with the devil' as Keith called it.  How they can make the
same mistake twice is beyond me.

The nature of open source is changing.  It's very easy to secretly buy off
people and manipulate projects.  That's something that XFree86 has the
luxury of handling and X.org doesn't.  I can tell you that it isn't pleasant
and it comes at a cost for all involved.  XFree86 has paid that cost and
isn't about to put up with more of it. Let those who lie in X.org's bed
sleep in it.  I'll be dammed if I'll let 'em bring those influences back
into XFree86 again.  You can count on it.

If anything is clear, it should be clear at this point that vendors do not
control XFree86.  Developers don't have to worry about vendors influencing
commits, release dates, membership, or anything else.  Screw the marketing
department, legal and the executives if they don't agree.

Rich

PS, This isn't meant to criticize you Alan (assuming you're not in legal,
marketing or management).


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