tomcat & mouse problems

[Chuck Robey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 20:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Julian Stecklina wrote:
>>> Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tell me, I haven't followed much of the history about Xfree86 the last few years
>>>> (far more concerned with serious health problems), do you know why there aren't
>>>> any Xfree86 ports in our ports anymore?  I checked, they ARE releasing new
>>>> software, it works, it actually builds far, far faster/easier, howcome our ports
>>>> are ignoring Xfree86 in favor of Xorg?  Not being fascetious here, I really
>>>> don't know.  I'm thinking I would like to experiment to see if the Xfree86 stuff
>>>> works for my mouse better, but I would really rather use our ports, than getting
>>>> a release directly from XFree86 (I don't think they even have FreeBSD binaries
>>>> anymore).
>>> I guess since the license fight that caused the fork most consider
>>> XFree86 obsolete. It is said that most development takes place in X.org
>>> at the moment.

License fight?  License fight?  Ohoh, didn't know about that.  When I see a
license fight on the road ahead, I treat it like any other outbreak of black plague.

If that's the only thing, I can just install XFree86 for myself, it's a trivial
buid, and never get dragged into a license fight.  Best of all possible worlds,
bcnu.

>>>
>>> Regards,
>> That can't possibly be the *entire* reason for the disappearance of all of the
>> XFree86 ports, is it?  Even the device ports (the ones with Xfree86 still in the
>> naming of the ports) has no Xfree86 code in it anymore.  I would be astonished
>> if that were really true ... because I downloaded the code from there about 3
>> months back, and was astonished that it built without one single glitch, needing
>> only one change (to make it go to the directory I wanted it to).  Not one
>> problem in building, a classic "trivial" build, it seemed to work fine also, and
>> it built SO much faster and simpler.  It can't just have been erased due to
>> someone's prejudice, could it?
> 
> No, the were lots of other serious issues that annoyed 90% of the
> XFree86 developers, see [1], [2]. The license issue was just the straw
> that broke the camel's back. The ports named 'xf86-*' have nothing to do
> with XFree86; they are solely xorg drivers.
> 
>> Damn, that would be disappointing, if it were true.  Luckily, it's builds so
>> trivially, it doesn['t even need a port, really.  As long as it hasn't changed
>> greatly from 90 days ago ...
>>
>> However, the reason I got onto this was because of my mouse's jerkiness, and
>> since I changed the my scheduler from SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD, that part's
>> improved also, so I have no longer got any huge reason to push this anymore.
>> Things are now working so well, I think I'll disappear now ...
> 
> That's fair enough, but literally no-one uses XFree86 any more. At all.
> So if you have weird interaction with your mouse on FreeBSD in XFree86,
> virtually no people will have a comparable system, or knowledge of
> issues..
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html
> [2] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmm1rYACgkQz62J6PPcoOnrRwCfYvvZ0QhrJQ3Z8hsAXFo0qQj1
eLkAn2o1IjP0rotV59GhQngfBpjE+5Kj
=eEDz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----