Using xorg instead of XFree86

[Matthew Gardiner]

On 2/7/04 3:38 AM, "pfgshield-pedro at yahoo.com" <pfgshield-pedro at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> <snip>
>>> But i also have some questions about switching to xorg.
>>> 
>>> (1) Will xorg be the default X in future FreeBSD Releases?
> 
>> Not too sure, however, I think the whole idea of maintaining the two is
>> rather stupid and the resources would be better spent simply maintaining one
>> than trying to pander to those who wish to use XFree86 4.4
> 
> It might seem stupid (to you), but as long as there are maintainer both will
> survive. That said AFAIK only one person has offered to maintain XFree86 and
> no one has offered to maintain X.Org.
> 
> At this stage FreeBSD 5.3 will still use XFree86 4.3 though :(.

IIRC, isn't there a maintainer of Xorg? I mean, essentially Xorg and XFree86
4.4 are the same thing, why not just have the one?

>> For all intensive purposes, Xorg has become the defacto standard for X11
>> implementations; FreeBSD might as well go with the flow.
> 
> Hmm... I would argue, from a license POV, that XFree86 can include all the
> Xorg
> enhancements in their distribution and might result being more stable.. but
> well .... time will tell.

But well all know how terrible XFree86 is when it comes to accepting new
pieces, hence the reason the whole project split. Mr Alpha Coder shant let
any of the riff-raft and unwashed masses submit their code to his beautiful
XFree86 code! The chances of XFree86 adopting any code is almost equal to
North Korea becoming a modern democracy over night; highly unlikely.

Ultimately XFree86 made their bed, they kicked everyone out and now they
wonder why they're as popular as SCO in the OSS community.

Matty