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 76180
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Who can take this seriously?
by on Tue 20th Dec 2005 19:21 UTC

Member since:

The irony of this is very funny. Isn't Aaron Siego one of the leaders of the pack that constantly claim that the fact that Qt is developed behind closed doors is good for KDE? He's blasting Novell for doing exactly what Trolltech does. Does anyone actually pay serious attention to this guy's rants anymore? Why does he have any credibility? I'm not talking about his development work, which I'm sure is stellar. I'm talking about his half-informed and poorly thought-out blog rants. In that respect the guy is clearly a crank and a troll, the kind who fools himself into believing that he's doing the world a favor by poking sticks in everybody's eyes. Obviously the KDE guys aren't very happy with Novell for other reasons these days, but there's just no excuse for this kind of half-witted scare mongering.

Look, I'm not big fan of closed development methodologies. I say, if your software is going to be free and open source software anyway, why not let the sunshine in? But the reality is that it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes we get "code drops" from on high, especially when a project is brand new. Companies including Trolltech and Novell have provided justifications for the practice in the past, which you are free to agree with or dismiss. The practice is certainly not ideal, in my opinion! But it's also certainly not "non-free" in any way, shape, or form, despite Siego's insinuations.

Free and open source code is free and open source code, whether you like how it was developed or not. If the development methodology of a project becomes a continuing problem once the code is out there, the community always has the option of forking (just as it did for different reasons with X.org). The free and open source label doesn't mean that the software is developed in a world of candy canes and unicorns designed just to your liking. It just means that the license is free and open.

Reply Score: 4