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 76210
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Who can take this seriously? A: I can...
by amadeo on Tue 20th Dec 2005 20:05 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me start by saying that, if Novell releases the code later, I think (and aseigo too, as he said) that having people working on XGL is good. That said, it could be better:

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.

Qt did not exist before trolltech started to develop it. XGL was already open source. Trolltech was generous for giving it's code for open source developers. Novell is taking public code and taking it to closed doors development, so, until they release the code, they are going the other way, the wrong way.

Qt is not developed in a public CVS in open fashion, because otherwise, Trolltech could not sell licenses. XGL has none of those restrictions. So the question is:

Why is Novell developing it this way? The public CVS was already there...

Can you spot the difference?

BTW, if you want to talk about credibility, what about those ximian guys who considered themselves the heros of free software now giving this bad example. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Bad, my friend, bad.

Reply Score: 3