State of Linux graphics

[Jon Smirl]

Before you shut my account off I made you this offer:

On 8/31/05, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Quit being a pain and write a response to the article if you don't
> like it. Censorship is not the answer. Open debate in a public format
> is the correct response. If you want me to I'll add your reponse to
> the end of the article.

I will still include your response if you want to write one.

On 8/31/05, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 00:50 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > On 8/30/05, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> > > 'As a whole, the X.org community barely has enough resources to build a
> > > single server. Splitting these resources over many paths only results in
> > > piles of half finished projects. I know developers prefer working on
> > > whatever interests them, but given the resources available to X.org,
> > > this approach will not yield a new server or even a fully-competitive
> > > desktop based on the old server in the near term. Maybe it is time for
> > > X.org to work out a roadmap for all to follow.'
> > >
> > > You lose.
> >
> > Daniel Stone, the administrator of freedesk.org, has just taken it
> > upon himself to censor my article on the state of the X server. His
> > lame excuse is that I have stopped working the core of Xegl. It
> > doesn't seem to matter that I contributed 1,000s of lines of code to
> > fd.o that I am continuing to do maintenance on. So much for this being
> > a free desktop.
> 
> Sigh.  As I explained in the long thread we had in private mail, I have
> done several cleanups now on inactive accounts and projects.  You are
> absolutely not the first, and will not be the last.  I have not done
> such sweeps for a while, because I have not had time.  The realisation
> that your account was doing nothing other than hosting an HTML page now
> that I have some amount of time to look at fd.o again was enough to spur
> me to start a cleanup, and indeed, I am in the process of pinging many
> other dormant contributors; many of which have merely stopped working on
> X and may return, rather than having posted long statements of
> resignation to the list.
> 
> And, as I explained, a simple statement of intent from you that you
> intend to resume active development will be enough to justify your
> account being renewed.
> 
> (Alternately, if another administrator re-enables your account, I will
> not stop this.  I'm not the sole admin, not by far ...)
> 
> Possibly impolitic and bad timing, sure.  But my intent was not to
> censor.
> 
> > Can some else provide a place for me to host the article?
> 
> Is the wiki insufficient?  It is currently hosting such insignificant
> articles as the 6.9/7.0 release plan, f.e. ...
> 
> 


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl at gmail.com