From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.windows.x.i386unix
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:15:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.194541.6848@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
> In article <RICH.92Oct10013832@kappa.Rice.edu> Rich@rice.edu writes:
> >Although DOS and Windows based X servers have their own merits, as it
> >stands, the charter is for discussion of a free X11R5 port which is
> >only supported on PC unix-like systems.
> 
> There are many folks (like me) which would not support a charter so
> restricted.  We would ask that you strike the word `free' from your
> description.  There is much commonality between XFree86, the commercial
> SGCS and Metrolink systems, and the vendor-supplied X packages.  It
> would be helpful to have a place to discuss all of these.  This would
> not detract or demean from the ability of this group to support XFree86.
> It would simply extend the charter to include more people.  For example,
> even though Thomas Roell is no longer involved in the free X server
> project, I'm sure he would read and contribute to the more general
> group.  I think that's a contribution the XFree86 users would welcome.
> 
> David's name change reflects this broader charter.  I strongly support
> it, and ask that others do too.
> 

Rich is aware of the change is scope of the charter.  He's on our
XFree86 mailing lists (as a recent addition to the core team), and the
charter expansion was agreed to in that forum before I posted the
revised RFD.

> >As a cooperative effort, both the users and the developers would benefit
> >from a forum focused on exchange of ideas specifically about the sources
> >and binaries which make up the free port.  It's also a forum for comparison
> >and discussion of kernel support for X.
> 
> Ouch!!!  You are leaving out the users.  Most of the people who want
> XFree86 just want to run the thing, they don't want to be X code
> hackers.  Many of the issues they confront are the same ones the users
> of commercial X distributions also have to handle.
> 

I agree; if you read the charter, one of the main purposes of the group
is for responding to user requests for help.  I know that we will handle
XFree86 this way.  I can't speak for commercial vendors, but I expect
that this will enhance their responsiveness, because they won't have
to wade through comp.unix.sysv386 (and its offspring) and comp.windows.x
looking for inquiries about their products.

> >I don't agree that discussion of DOS and Windows servers would enhance
> >the proposed charter.
> 
> If you are arguing that DOS-based X servers don't belong in this group,
> I think David agrees with you.  I know from private email that he
> explicitly wanted to make a distinction between Unix (and Unixishy)
> X systems and others, and support only the former with this newsgroup.
> You might be reading too deeply between lines which don't exist.

Yes; we are very explicitly trying to restrict this to Unix-like OSs.
This may annoy some people, but the issues of running X on PC-based Unix 
are very similar, regardless which OS flavor, or particular vendor.
There is little to no correlation to running X under DOS or Window
or wherever Desqview/X fits.  If those folks feel they need a newsgroup,
they can have their own RFD/CFV.

> -- 
> Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | I got the blues so bad one time
> Unicom Systems Development   | it put my face in a permanent frown.
> <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   |   - Taj Mahal


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wexelblat             | dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com  | Somebody get me a
AT&T Bell Laboratories      | ...!att!mtgzfs3!dwex  |   cheeseburger!
200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421     |                       |      
Middletown, NJ  07748       | (908) 957-5871        | --Steve Miller Band