Xorg 1.5 missed the train?

[Les Mikesell]

Bill Crawford wrote:
> 
>>> So why should "Fedora" commit to supporting "binary driver Foo" before
>>> their release is ready?
>> That has nothing to do with what I said.  I'm suggesting that fedora should
>> ship with interfaces that are publicized as standard, and allow time for
>> changes in this standard to propagate before shipping something different
>> from the standard.  This has nothing to do with supporting anything or
>> anyone.  It is common decency in interaction.
> 
> So in other words, Fedora must always be ... what, at least six months
> behind the times, or something?

A month, maybe...

>>> You keep saying "publicly" but for the company concerned, who will
>>> have to make their driver work with the ABI in question, it being in
>>> the X server code base and discussed on the mailing lists (which they
>>> do have access to) is reasonable enough information for them to go on.
>> Do you have the authority to speak for them?  It just does not sound like a
>> reasonable business decision to expect anyone to make.
> 
> Huh? I'm pointing out that they speak for themselves. You're just
> making argument for the sake of it now.

No, that's not what they've said.

 > Why should anyone be held
> hostage to nVidia's "business decisions"?

Publishing/following standards leaves no one hostage to anything.

> Least of all the people
> developing the X server, who manage to work quite well with others.

And that release notice?

> Not their fault if a certain company won't play well.

With what standard?

>> Unless you install fedora, which doesn't mention that it shipped a
>> pre-release.
> 
> It's quite apparent that the situation would still have arisen even if
> 1.5 had made the release date for Fedora, as mentioned elsewhere in
> this thread was a claim that nVidia want to see the new thing shipped
> on a distro before committing to it.

A claim that seems to have been as fabricated as yours, or at least 
based on ancient history.

> So, this is now irrelevant for
> the discussion (because it does not materially change the outcome of
> the drivers not being ready at F9 release time).

I don't think anyone can support that claim, given Nvida's public 
statement that they would target the X release.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com