Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X.Org Server Development Hits A Nearly Two Decade Low

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    ssokolow Qt license problem exist today. CLA is a no-go. There’s no NIH just a sane approach to deal with license trolls.

    Avoid, avoid, avoid.
    Nice job avoiding my point that it's about the history of anti-social psychology that underlies the GNOME development effort and the recurring detrimental patterns it produces by fixating on the one example which you know how to hit back against.

    Read that "haters desktop" link. It gives good examples of compaing apples (TDE) to apples (the KDE 3.5 enterprise (LTS) branches) to show how the psychology of the TDE developers hurts it.
    Last edited by ssokolow; 01-05-2020, 12:47 PM.

    Comment


    • #72
      ssokolow There’s no psychology involved here. Avoiding CLA license trolls is a prerequisite for good engineering and legal practice.

      Qt was never a valid candidate as a truly free toolkit or a truly free community. So GNOME was never NIHing..

      Comment


      • #73
        I wish DE's would adopt Arcan already instead of trying to hack their sloooowww way into Wayland...

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by GhostOfFunkS View Post
          ssokolow There’s no psychology involved here. Avoiding CLA license trolls is a prerequisite for good engineering and legal practice.

          Qt was never a valid candidate as a truly free toolkit or a truly free community. So GNOME was never NIHing..
          Me tienes cansado con esa estupidez de "CLA".

          *sigh* Come on, stop picking on Qt over a "CLA".

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
            I wish DE's would adopt Arcan already instead of trying to hack their sloooowww way into Wayland...
            Reinventing the Wheel (I mean, rewriting whole desktop environments to cope with the Arcan protocol)


            No, thanks. Why doesn't Arcan implement/support Wayland?

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

              Reinventing the Wheel (I mean, rewriting whole desktop environments to cope with the Arcan protocol)
              But unlike Wayland, Arcan reached feature-parity with Xorg quite some time ago, so it's much easier to port DE's because it's much more complete than Wayland in its current state.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

                Reinventing the Wheel (I mean, rewriting whole desktop environments to cope with the Arcan protocol)


                No, thanks. Why doesn't Arcan implement/support Wayland?
                My understanding is that it does... it just has a Microkernel-like architecture where Wayland support is a separate process called waybridge and the Arcan protocol isn't intended to be adopted by toolkits. (The article I linked also talks about how it's part of Arcan's strategy for allowing Wayland applications to survive compositor crashes by having waybridge act sort of like GNU Screen.)
                Last edited by ssokolow; 01-05-2020, 02:32 PM.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                  ssokolow There’s no psychology involved here. Avoiding CLA license trolls is a prerequisite for good engineering and legal practice.

                  Qt was never a valid candidate as a truly free toolkit or a truly free community. So GNOME was never NIHing..
                  Again, fixating on that one point you can dispute. Back in the GNOME 2.x days, GNOME was rather infamous for refusing KDE offers to write C bindings for lower-level infrastructure stuff where Qt was either optional or not a dependency and explicitly saying it was because they were refusing to depend on C++.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    ssokolow Again. Qt is not an option. C bindings won’t change that.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                      ssokolow Again. Qt is not an option. C bindings won’t change that.
                      I repeat:
                      1. KDE developers were offering to make C bindings for lower-level infrastructure stuff where Qt was either optional or not a dependency
                      2. GNOME developer were explicitly saying it was because they were refusing to depend on C++
                      Please read the comments you're responding to.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X