Very Computer

Quote:> No, because they evilly spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about
> the <emphasis type="sarcasm"> Perfect Implementation </emphasis> that
> is XFree86.

No one claimed, in defense of said, is perfect.  If they did, *that
would be stupid*.  Where are you getting this "Perfect Implementation"
stuff?

Quote:> This is actually *not at all* a good case in which to use Microsoft as
> a comparable organization.
> The X11 protocols *are* open standards by reasonable definitions of
> such, and in effect, XFree86 and Xi Graphics are competing on relatively
> equal terms, at least from the perspective of having documentation of
> the standard to which they code.

NT supports the TCP/IP protocal, and that is certainly open.  By your
logic, NT must be open and, in effect, Linux and Windows are competing
on relatively equal grounds because a standard to which they code is
open.  Be aware that X is governed by a BSD copyright, which is a good
deal more liberal than he GPL we know and love - being that anything can
be done, closedly, with the software.  Because I code to an open
standard doesn't mean I am open.

[snip]

--
Ross Vandegrift | Eric J. Fenderson

"Man, I've been working in a retirement home WAY too long."
        --Todd Presson

posted:

Quote:>> No, because they evilly spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about
>> the <emphasis type="sarcasm"> Perfect Implementation </emphasis> that
>> is XFree86.

>No one claimed, in defense of said, is perfect.  If they did, *that
>would be stupid*.  Where are you getting this "Perfect Implementation"
>stuff?

There's got to be some reason to be comparing them to Microsoft.

Quote:>> This is actually *not at all* a good case in which to use Microsoft as
>> a comparable organization.
>> The X11 protocols *are* open standards by reasonable definitions of
>> such, and in effect, XFree86 and Xi Graphics are competing on relatively
>> equal terms, at least from the perspective of having documentation of
>> the standard to which they code.

>NT supports the TCP/IP protocal, and that is certainly open.  By your
>logic, NT must be open and, in effect, Linux and Windows are competing
>on relatively equal grounds because a standard to which they code is
>open.  

Of course not.

NT includes support for TCP/IP, as well as a whole lot of other stuff,
much of which is not documented in any public fashion, and is certainly
not documented via standards for which one might expect to be able to
evaluate conformance.

Accelerated X is intended as an implementation of an X server, for which
one may evaluate conformance against the protocol definitions documented
by the standards.

Quote:>Be aware that X is governed by a BSD copyright, which is a good
>deal more liberal than he GPL we know and love - being that anything can
>be done, closedly, with the software.  Because I code to an open
>standard doesn't mean I am open.

No, X is not "governed by a BSD copyright."

X is a protocol that is governed by the X Consortium, which is now a
committee running under the auspices of The Open Group.

What you might be thinking of is the X Sample Implementation, which is
neither the standard, nor, necessarily, fully conformant to the standard.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the material at
<http://www.opengroup.org>
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.  
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

Quote:> NT includes support for TCP/IP, as well as a whole lot of other stuff,
> much of which is not documented in any public fashion, and is certainly
> not documented via standards for which one might expect to be able to
> evaluate conformance.

> Accelerated X is intended as an implementation of an X server, for which
> one may evaluate conformance against the protocol definitions documented
> by the standards.

But that doesn't change the fact that the actual code is closed, which I
believe to be wrong.  I suppose that is where we differ.

Quote:> >Be aware that X is governed by a BSD copyright, which is a good
> >deal more liberal than he GPL we know and love - being that anything can
> >be done, closedly, with the software.  Because I code to an open
> >standard doesn't mean I am open.

> No, X is not "governed by a BSD copyright."

You're right here, I suppose I was refering to the Sample
Implementation, and got a bit convuluded without realizeing it.  I do
apologize.

--
Ross Vandegrift | Eric J. Fenderson

"Man, I've been working in a retirement home WAY too long."
        --Todd Presson

posted:

Quote:>> NT includes support for TCP/IP, as well as a whole lot of other stuff,
>> much of which is not documented in any public fashion, and is certainly
>> not documented via standards for which one might expect to be able to
>> evaluate conformance.

>> Accelerated X is intended as an implementation of an X server, for which
>> one may evaluate conformance against the protocol definitions documented
>> by the standards.

>But that doesn't change the fact that the actual code is closed, which I
>believe to be wrong.  I suppose that is where we differ.

The "closedness" of Xi's product happens to be a fact, which I suppose
you consider a m*wrong.

My point is that the situation is quite different with Xi's software
than it is with Microsoft's software.

The fact that the latter (e.g. NT) implicitly defines a standard that they
deny you the ability to know (and that is ill-defined, and that is likely
quite buggy, to add further wrongs) is a considerably greater evil than
any evil that results from one's inability to grok the implementation
of the Accelerated X, which is, despite the unavailability of source,
nonetheless expected to conform to a public standard, namely X11R6.

As such, it is further arguable (I won't hold tenaciously to this point)
that since the things that it implements are quite well-defined, it may
be regarded as an "appliance" of sorts, in a fashion not unlike the
fashion in which video cards are regarded as "appliances."  The GPL
doesn't really contemplate embedded devices that are not intended to
be programmable; appliances generally are such, and Accelerated-X might
also be so regarded.

An alternative viewpoint is that since XFree86 is available, and is
commonly able to represent a reasonable alternative to Accelerated X,
the closedness of Accelerated X's sources is not *all* that important.
To be sure, there are things that are more worthwhile to fight against
if you consider all proprietary software to be an evil...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.  
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.veryComputer.com/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>