Re: X.Org X11R7.x in OpenBSD (mod 6/78)
by Igor Sobrado (184.108.40.206) on Sun Jul 16 11:34:32 2006 (GMT)
> > Because xlogo and xeyes are a component of X11 since 1986-87
> I don't see why that means we should keep them. Tradition for tradition's sake?
We should not remove an OS component without a good reason to do it. Replacing RCS and CVS with OpenCVS makes sense to me, as we will have a clean, audited and maintained revision control system (and it is even more important for CVS, as it allows remote repositories reachable from untrusted hosts). Same about replacing GNU's gzip with a front-end to the zlib library. But removing a small and stable client that most Unix users will expect in the X11 distribution only because it is not widely used does not seem right to me.
> > In fact, xlogo is useful to check that the render extension is enabled too!
> That's kind of silly, when there's:
> $ xdpyinfo | grep RENDER
Well, we know if the render extension is enabled looking at the output of xdpyinfo, but xlogo shows how an application will look when using this extension too. It shows how a render-enabled client must look and if this extension is working as we expect in our current hardware. (e.g., will the render extension work on an old X/Terminal connected to an X server using XDMCP?)
[ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]
Add Story |
Copyright © 2004-2008
All rights reserved.
Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors,
submission implies license to publish on this web site.
Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images
and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original
Jim's kind permission.
Some icons from slashdot.org
used with permission from Kathleen.
This journal runs as CGI with
on OpenBSD, the
source code is
Search engine is ht://Dig.
undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]