On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:46:56PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote: > Paul Vojta wrote: > >On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:59PM -0400, mark kandianis wrote: > >>At 06:39 PM 5/24/2004 -0400, you wrote: > >>found it man. > >>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2004-May/msg05005.html > > > >OK, so I looked there, and read through a lot of messages, consisting > >mostly > >of a lot of back-and-forth of the same low quality as you see in this > >mailing > >list (present company excluded, of course :-)). > > > >I think references to "the man" might be a little too obscure for at least > >some people on this list. If you're saying that x.org is too strongly > >tied to corporate interests, then please point me to where in that thread > >you drew that conclusion from. As I see it, the thread (very slowly) > >confirms my preference for x.org over xfree86. > > > > You might want to be read some of the other messages in this thread. I have. Are you referring to the incorrect accusations on x.org's supposed hypocrisy, or the unsubstantiated innuendo about x.org's behavior "to get a development contract"? Anything other than the fact that they don't like the XF86 1.1 license? > I've quoted several times an article from The Inquirer on both this > thread and the one on the Fedora list, and someone else explained quite > feverently what the problem is with X.org. I've reread this thread just now, and I don't see the Inquirer mentioned at all. In fact, "grep -i inquir 2004-May.txt" doesn't find anything either. -- Paul Vojta, vojta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum