Note that while my opinion matches Keith Packard's (we'd like to see
xprint go away, but there are also dependencies on it), Roland Maintz
has done much work to improve its behavior in the recent X.org X
releases. Of course, Debian is still stuck in the past, while pretty
much the rest of the worl
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 16:12 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Yeah, definitely. If our goal is making our software as portable and
> bug-free as possible, we'd be better off running fewer arches but with a
> greater variety of compilers.
>
> Now if there were only any viable free alternatives to GCC..
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > But a total of eleven is insane.
> >
> > It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
> >
>
Bruce,
The history there is much more complex that that; you are
oversimplifying. In fact, with my perspective, the failure occurred
before that, but (un)intended consequences of the Consortium agreement,
which disenfranchised the flourishing community we had built. Pay for
say, and centralized de
eased something like 16
months ago.
It does represent a major architectural shift in X; the reasons
for it are outlined in our Usenix paper.
- Jim
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 19:52, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:20:41PM -0800, Jim Gettys wrote
fonts be installed on the same host as the
> client application, nor can it use them if they are. Fonts must rather
> be installed on the host where the font server runs, which is probably
> the one where the X server runs.
--
Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory
reciated,
by anyone interested... Interested?
- Jim Gettys
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 09:46, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:11, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > > I found this ide
7 matches
Mail list logo
