From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 18:01:32 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74341065783 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:01:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@telenix.org) Received: from mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED5E8FC2F for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:01:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@telenix.org) Received: (qmail 13329 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2009 18:01:31 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (HELO april.telenix.org) (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 26 Feb 2009 18:01:31 -0000 Message-ID: <49A6D6B6.2080305@telenix.org> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:51:50 -0500 From: Chuck Robey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090121) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Evans References: <49A19C22.8000600@telenix.org> <20090223083114.F86550@ury.york.ac.uk> <49A5ABB4.2090601@telenix.org> <877i3efb1g.fsf@tabernacle.lan> <49A5F448.7060409@telenix.org> <1235640452.2224.65.camel@strangepork.mintel.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1235640452.2224.65.camel@strangepork.mintel.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=F3DCA0E9; url=http://pgp.mit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Julian Stecklina Subject: Re: tomcat & mouse problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:01:39 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tom Evans wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 20:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Julian Stecklina wrote: >>> Chuck Robey writes: >>> >>>> Tell me, I haven't followed much of the history about Xfree86 the last few years >>>> (far more concerned with serious health problems), do you know why there aren't >>>> any Xfree86 ports in our ports anymore? I checked, they ARE releasing new >>>> software, it works, it actually builds far, far faster/easier, howcome our ports >>>> are ignoring Xfree86 in favor of Xorg? Not being fascetious here, I really >>>> don't know. I'm thinking I would like to experiment to see if the Xfree86 stuff >>>> works for my mouse better, but I would really rather use our ports, than getting >>>> a release directly from XFree86 (I don't think they even have FreeBSD binaries >>>> anymore). >>> I guess since the license fight that caused the fork most consider >>> XFree86 obsolete. It is said that most development takes place in X.org >>> at the moment. License fight? License fight? Ohoh, didn't know about that. When I see a license fight on the road ahead, I treat it like any other outbreak of black plague. If that's the only thing, I can just install XFree86 for myself, it's a trivial buid, and never get dragged into a license fight. Best of all possible worlds, bcnu. >>> >>> Regards, >> That can't possibly be the *entire* reason for the disappearance of all of the >> XFree86 ports, is it? Even the device ports (the ones with Xfree86 still in the >> naming of the ports) has no Xfree86 code in it anymore. I would be astonished >> if that were really true ... because I downloaded the code from there about 3 >> months back, and was astonished that it built without one single glitch, needing >> only one change (to make it go to the directory I wanted it to). Not one >> problem in building, a classic "trivial" build, it seemed to work fine also, and >> it built SO much faster and simpler. It can't just have been erased due to >> someone's prejudice, could it? > > No, the were lots of other serious issues that annoyed 90% of the > XFree86 developers, see [1], [2]. The license issue was just the straw > that broke the camel's back. The ports named 'xf86-*' have nothing to do > with XFree86; they are solely xorg drivers. > >> Damn, that would be disappointing, if it were true. Luckily, it's builds so >> trivially, it doesn['t even need a port, really. As long as it hasn't changed >> greatly from 90 days ago ... >> >> However, the reason I got onto this was because of my mouse's jerkiness, and >> since I changed the my scheduler from SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD, that part's >> improved also, so I have no longer got any huge reason to push this anymore. >> Things are now working so well, I think I'll disappear now ... > > That's fair enough, but literally no-one uses XFree86 any more. At all. > So if you have weird interaction with your mouse on FreeBSD in XFree86, > virtually no people will have a comparable system, or knowledge of > issues.. > > Cheers > > Tom > > [1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html > [2] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmm1rYACgkQz62J6PPcoOnrRwCfYvvZ0QhrJQ3Z8hsAXFo0qQj1 eLkAn2o1IjP0rotV59GhQngfBpjE+5Kj =eEDz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----