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

Is X.org the X Consortium?

Posted Apr 9, 2004 5:50 UTC (Fri) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
In reply to: Is X.org the X Consortium? by tedickey
Parent article: X.Org Foundation releases X Window System X11R6.7

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.