Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!goliath.apana.org.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 15:41:59 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <31702DB7.72CFF4F4@lambert.org>
References: <4joi3n$bvb@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> <stephenkDp7nHo.369@netcom.com> <4jv7c9$m5t@park.uvsc.edu> <stephenkDpCsvp.LBu@netcom.com> <4kfkb2$dgs@coyote.Artisoft.COM> <Dpns87.4A0@ccc.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14415 comp.os.linux.development.system:21243 comp.os.linux.x:29235 comp.os.linux.hardware:36224 comp.os.linux.setup:50309 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:557 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3150 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2949 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17205
Henry A Worth wrote:
]
] Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote:
] : XFree86 is primarily for the benefit of the free Intel UNIX
] : clones. Commercial Intel UNIX comes with an X Server, usually
] : OEM, and XFree86 is limited to Intel.
]
] : This is all about nothing but Millenium support for Linux and BSD.
]
] The origins of XFree86(tm) date back to long before there were free
] Intel UNIX clones, and I know I, and others who have contributed,
] bristle when people try to equate XFree86 with one of the freeware
] UNIX'en or GNU. XFree86 is a separate project, independent of any
] particlular OS and portable to many. Prior to the arrival of
] freeware UNIX'en, the pre-incorporation antecedents of XFree86 were
] developed to support commercial UNIX'en. The commercial UNIX
] servers were typically very expensive (if available), supported only
] a few older video cards, had very limited features and resolutions,
] were slow to move to newer X11 releases, and all too often orphaned.
] Up until about a year ago, SVR4 was probably the most common platform
] used by XFree86 developers, but a couple have moved to *BSD or dropped
] out. XFree86 still supports more commercial OS's than there are
] freeware clones.
Yes. But market realities have caused most of the commercial
UNIX vendors to stop charging for (or start bundling with, your
choice) their X servers.
It may not be the intent of XFree86 to be an "also ran" on commercial
Intel UNIX as opposed to the free OS's, but that is the current
reality.
This is not to say that the XFree86 has pursued this relationship
with the UNIX market, or that this was their intended goal, or
anything else where I'd have to assume motivations on their behalf.
I note for the record that David's posting (the thread of which
this posting is itself a memebr) went *ONLY* to the Linux and BSD
camps, and not to the other camps that you claim is a bigger
portion of XFree86's market.
It seems logical that all XFree86 consumers, not just those in
the Linux and BSD camps, would benefit from David's posting.
It also seems logical that commercial users (ie: people who spend
money) making complaints to their vendors and to Matrox to get
Matrox cards dropped from "preferre hardware" lists would have
a hell of a lot more effect than angry threads by Linux and BSD
proponents.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.