Is X.org the X Consortium? [LWN.net]

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 0:51 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I see. So X.Org is the "new" X Consortium after being dormant for many
years. I remember downloading X11R5 and compiling it for Ultrix and
later X11R6 for various systems. So it wasn't that the old ones weren't
intended for end users but the idea of an end user has changed a bit over
time.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:43 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>I see. So X.Org is the "new" X Consortium after being dormant for many
>years.
"dormant" doesn't seem to describe it properly.
Perhaps "resurrected" is more apt: there's some
loss of continuity in action, but the players
are still the same.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 5:50 UTC (Fri) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

There are a lot of people involved in X.Org who weren't involved in the X
Consortium for many reasons. Also, X.Org is far more open than the old XC.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 9:19 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>There are a lot of people involved in X.Org who weren't involved in the X
>Consortium for many reasons. Also, X.Org is far more open than the old XC.
I see that comment ("more open") too often without substantiation.
As for "a lot of people" - still no. Same people, different name.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 12:45 UTC (Fri) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

Here's a start: myself, Egbert Eich, Mike Harris, Matthias Ettrich, Kevin Martin,
Stuart Anderson ... to my knowledge, none of these people were involved with the
X Consortium.

Oh, and as for the openness? Join the lists, and the organisation. Nominate for
the board or architecture group. Jump on the calls. Read the minutes of the calls
if you can't jump on. Anyone can do this.

Hell, hack on the code. The CVS repository, mailing lists, and bug tracking
system are all out there in the open. This wasn't true of the X Consortium, and
wasn't even true of XFree86 until very, very recently.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 12:58 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

um - no. You're misunderstanding. Control was defined at the outset.
It'll take time to determine if it is open, or "open". Since there
have been no adverse events, it is meaningless to talk about how well
the proposed structure is doing.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 12:28 UTC (Thu) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>X.org has been releasing X versions all along, which XFree86 has been
>taking and incorporating into their distributions. If you look at an
>XFree86 distribution, it will have a set of release notes for the X.org
>portion as well as the main release notes. It has been X.org's versions
>of things like xrdb, xterm, xfontsel, etc. which you get if you get
>XFree86. With this release, X.org has started releasing complete.

sorry, that is not true.
not even close.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 15:26 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

Well thanks for that informative post -- things are much clearer now. ;-)

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 16:50 UTC (Thu) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

Since most of the comment was either misleading,
or incorrect, there was not much to elaborate upon.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 16:56 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

So, um, if you believe the assertions made to be factually incorrect, and you believe yourself
to have proper factual information...

and you aren't going to bother to post it (or link to it) for our edification...

um, why are you here again?

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 18:43 UTC (Thu) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

> um, why are you here again?
hmm - since you don't know how to use google, start here:

http://invisible-island.net/xterm/

(I don't _believe_ the comment to be incorrect, I _know_ it).

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 21:06 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

And, oddly, there's nothing on that page to connect it with either you *or* the history of the
orgnization presently known as X.org. I guess I should have expected the ad-hominem from
someone as helpful as yourself, though.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 0:10 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

> And, oddly, there's nothing on that page to connect it with either you
> *or* the history of the orgnization presently known as X.org. I guess
> I should have expected the ad-hominem from someone as helpful as
> yourself, though.
indeed. I gave you too much credit by assuming you could do your
own analysis (or had in fact read the comment to which I objected).

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 0:40 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

You know, it's strange.

There is occasionally this perception that I see amongst some members of the open source community that the donation of your time you make to the community somehow *entitles* you to be a smarmy prick in public.

It doesn't.

The page you pointed to doesn't even mention your name, much less does it contain any links that even *appear* to point to any information concerning whether X.org is the same as the Consortium. Certainly, it is neither more nor less blather than my own website, but at least I'm not pointing people to mine with a snotty off-hand remark.

So it didn't seem to be a fertile ground for any research (which, rather than analysis, seems to be what you're upbraiding me for not having done). In any event, I gave you three bites before calling you on your attitude; I'm done now.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 0:57 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

I pointed you at my home page for xterm. My name appears
on the FAQ and CHANGE LOG pages from that point. Similarly,
if you chose to google on xterm, you would find my name. If
you had bothered to read the comment, it stated (among
other things):

>It has been X.org's versions of things like xrdb, xterm,
>xfontsel, etc. which you get if you get XFree86.

which is completely untrue. Arguing about this proves that
you don't understand what you're saying, don't care if you
do, and are unlikely to change.

On the other hand, you are posting anonymously, and acting
precisely as you're complaining about.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:17 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

Arguing about this proves that you don't understand what you're saying, don't care if you do, and are unlikely to change.

Well, no. I wasn't even arguing about the point you're standing on; didn't bring it up at all, not even once.

And as for anonymous...

well, I'll be dipped. This is about the only place I comment that doesn't hotlink my name to either an email address or a website; notwithstanding which, anyone who wanted to do their research could turn up a meat address and phone number for me with (frankly, far too) little effort.

But, you know, none of this meta-argument speaks at all to your orginal reply, which (clearly) other people found as useless as I did. I stand on my reputation, and by my comments.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 22:43 UTC (Thu) by richardfish (guest, #20657) [Link]

Ok, I'll agree that people should generally do some more research before posting. But posts like this are as bad as mis-information.

I am guessing that you are "Thomas E Dickey", the maintainer for xterm for XFree86. If so, you are in a better position than any of us to enlighten us on the relationship/history between X.org, the X Consortium, and XFree86. While I don't expect you to post a 300-page history-of-X here, a couple of sentances and URLs would have been helpful.

I'll post my best understanding of things. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

The X Window System is really a set of specifications that are versioned (X11R6 is X Windows System version 11 revision 6). Any vendors distributing "X Windows" should (must?) comply with those specifications.

The X Consortium maintained the specifications, backed by reference source code. In 1996 it transferred that job to The Open Group which formed X.org to take on the task. Now in 2004, that job will be done by the "X.Org Foundation", which is really just a name change so that it can call it's forked version of XFree86 "X.org". Are we confused yet?

Bottom line: they are not the same, but they do the same job.

References:
http://www.opengroup.org/tech/desktop/Press_Releases/xccloses.htm
http://www.x.org/XOrg_background.html

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:41 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>Ok, I'll agree that people should generally do some more research before >posting. But posts like this are as bad as mis-information.
Not exactly. What's obvious to me may not be obvious to you.

I was not much interested in the slice dealing with the derivation of
X.Org from X/Open from X Consortium, but the statement that XFree86 only
distributes applications that are "X.Org" got my attention. Since about
a third of the applications are modified by XFree86 (and most of the
remaining ones were not touched by anyone since ~1998), it was worth
pointing out that it was incorrect. (Saying it was "X.Org" doubled
the points since "X.Org" dates after the related code).

There are other issues that come to mind, but I don't want to start
a new thread.

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:52 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>The X Consortium maintained the specifications, backed by reference source >code. In 1996 it transferred that job to The Open Group which formed X.org >to take on the task. Now in 2004, that job will be done by the "X.Org >Foundation", which is really just a name change so that it can call it's >forked version of XFree86 "X.org". Are we confused yet?
Still a little confused: "X.Org" (the current one) dates from January.
The paperwork to set it up dates from last fall (September).

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 1:59 UTC (Fri) by tedickey (guest, #20738) [Link]

>I am guessing that you are "Thomas E Dickey", the maintainer for xterm for >XFree86.
yes
>If so, you are in a better position than any of us to enlighten us on the >relationship/history between X.org, the X Consortium, and XFree86. While I >don't expect you to post a 300-page history-of-X here, a couple of >sentances and URLs would have been helpful.
Probably not: describing the current X.org properly would require
some speculation on the dynamics of the situation. (I don't like
to speculate, and don't see any point in arguing about opinions).

There was a much-toned-down history of X on this website recently.
That's enough to get up to about a year ago. Current events are
harder to report (every reporter thinks he's a general).