Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2005 13:03 UTC, submitted by zam001
X11, Window Managers Aaron Siego of KDE: "It would be very nice if our X server could use OpenGL directly for its display and composition. Because then we could have hardware accelerated effects that are not only cool looking, but also very useful. Well, there is just such a project underway, called XGL. But don't hold your breath. The development of XGL has been largely removed from the community and is being done behind closed doors. Who is this company, you ask, that would take the development of something as potentially important as this out of the community and put it behind closed doors? Novell."
Thread beginning with comment 76122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: responses
by Tyr. on Tue 20th Dec 2005 17:57 UTC in reply to "responses"
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

it ensures that nobody else can work with what could be a fairly important technology while it is in development

People are always told that's one of the great things about open source : anyone can take the code and start hacking, now suddenly that's a bad thing ?

it ensures that other vendors are *not* supporting xgl and going off and doing their own thing which means we get further splintering of the community and direction around X

Another piece of open source doctrine : open source is freedom of choice which is good, the good technology succeeds and competes. Now suddenly you're worried about fragmentation, how about resolving the fragmentation in the layers above the X server first ?
Besides which fragmentation, this thing implements X11, so it should be compatible with other implementations right ?

there is absolutely no good technical reason for what is happening, it's purely a "business decision"

Let's see assembling a small dedicated team of paid professionals to work on a piece of software they would like to see released is not a good technical reason. This would be because we all know that the bazar model is superior in all possible circumstances and configurations to any other development model. Um yeah.

And if the fork stays closed well that's the option the original author offered them (when choosing the license) and that was his choice to make, even the GPL allow you to keep your code to yourself as long you keep the product in house.

Sorry, but this whole thing just smacks of GPL license fanaticism to me (all code must be Free and all that)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: responses
by on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:01 in reply to "RE: responses"
Member since:

"People are always told that's one of the great things about open source : anyone can take the code and start hacking, now suddenly that's a bad thing ?"

Jesus, learn to read.

The bad thing is that the code is _not_ publicly available, so nobody from the outside can take, nobody from the outside can test it and give feedback or adjust other software to work well with XGL, nobody from the outside can contribute, so some would like to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: responses
by Tyr. on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:11 in reply to "RE[2]: responses"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

The bad thing is that the code is _not_ publicly available, so nobody from the outside can take, nobody from the outside can test it and give feedback or adjust other software to work well with XGL, nobody from the outside can contribute, so some would like to.

Read what I said : anyone can take the code, maybe there are 100 other devs out there hacking on their own forks in private. The code is there they can take it, this is supposed to be good.
But no, someone might be actually doing some work of value and the first response is not "cool, someone took our code and it helped them" (which would be more in tune with the purported values of the open source community), but "Gimme, gimme gimmeeee !" instead.

Here's a clue : there are actually licenses that require changes to be sent back to the original author, it's licenses like these that open source zealots like to denounce companies like Apple and Sun over.
I just whish they would make up their minds already, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: responses
by null_pointer_us on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:27 in reply to "RE[2]: responses"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

The bad thing is that the code is _not_ publicly available, so nobody from the outside can take, nobody from the outside can test it and give feedback or adjust other software to work well with XGL, nobody from the outside can contribute, so some would like to.

I believe he was talking about the code that's still in the public repository, not the code from the Novell fork. His point is that Novell was only able to fork the code because it was under an "open source" license in the first place. And no, I didn't understand him the first two times I read it, either. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: responses
by on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:44 in reply to "RE: responses"
Member since:

"Sorry, but this whole thing just smacks of GPL license fanaticism to me (all code must be Free and all that)"

Actually, complaining about the development model used by a company or individual is not something that I would relate to the Free Software Movement. Free software is about freedoms of the user of released code, and says nothing about the development model; the development model is an idea of people who defend the "Open Source" definition.

Reply Parent Score: 0