From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 5 09:24:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA20654 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:24:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from shell.firehouse.net (brian@shell.firehouse.net [209.42.203.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA20079 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:18:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@shell.firehouse.net) Received: from localhost (brian@localhost) by shell.firehouse.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA23412; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:17:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:17:28 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Mitchell To: "David E. Wexelblat" cc: "'devel@XFree86.Org'" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: interested in working on windows port (sorry for cross post) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, David E. Wexelblat wrote: > Who is your target audience? Why on earth would I set up > a windows box that is doing nothing but running X? This > seems extraordinarily useless - if I wanted a dedicated > X machine, I'd run Linux on it. > > The only reason to put X on a Windows PC is interoperability. That's my opinion as well (minus the linux part). I run exceed at work in multiple window mode, it lets me get real work done. Full screen mode seems more kludgy, since I can't run windows and x11 apps side by side. However, my X needs are extremely slight, and I don't think it makes that much of a difference. The OS/2 (Warp) port of XF86 might be a good place to start.