On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:53:30AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/5/20 Jacob Todd <jaketodd422_AT_gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:08:07PM +0200, pancake wrote:
> >> ....
> >
> > Seems interesting, but instead of reinventing the wheel, why don't we just clean
> > up X.org and submit patches back upstream? Rewriting/implementing X.org seems li
> > ke more work than it's worth, but cleaning up Xorg would be better for everyone.
>
> Unfortunately that's not my intention. I have a completely new WS in
> mind, design-wise with no X dependency, just an X legacy support layer
> instead. The crucial part of X imho is the hardware support, that's
> why I want to stick to xorg-drivers*, just because that's the bit
> which can't be done properly without driver experts. X.org can't be
> fixed because it consists of all the X10 and X11 legacy we don't want
> to carry on in a new WS, we want a different WS, not a state-machine
> WS like X. And X.org won't be willing to accept patches which change
> its internal behavior radically.
>
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>
Before; for some odd reason, I was thinking you (we?) wanted to drop legacy X11
support and just start completely over. Now that I know there's legacy support
this seems like a good idea.
Received on Wed May 20 2009 - 10:23:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 20 2009 - 10:24:11 UTC