Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:28:19 -0800 From: "CK" <un_x@earthlink.net> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Building X11 Message-ID: <E1bk0t4-0005A4-Au@elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
deciding to install X11 from scratch to avoid the massive amounts of "junk" that is required to be downloaded and installed with a "ports" installation, work was done to compile X11 from sources ... and a view is offered with a suggestion that people get a little more critical on what is being "pushed" on everyone by inserting "self-serving octopus tentacles" and agendas by means of integrating "glue" into much of standard Unix software; and for no other reason than self-serving agendas; ie, without merit insofar as "satisfying users". /server irc.freenode.net /join #xcb > i would like to know if it is possible to allow "xcb" to build in Xorg without Python. in my view, whoever made the decision to force X11 users to download/install/maintain Python really has no business developing X11. > nothing against Python in particular ... it really doesn't matter what "massive non-Unix" language ... the point is that a massive non-Unix installation of someone's "favorite programming language" is being pushed on people that for whatever reasons (storage or other resources or just "lack of clutter" or dislike for the language, etc) may not want it, but it is being shoved into everyone's system if they need to use X11. > and along with that, a requirement to learn enough of the language to maintain it and repair problems that occur with it in it's installation in relation to X11. > can anyone say what purpose this serves, and how it is or is not absolutely necessary, and if this dependency can be removed? otherwise, i am working on a distribution without xcb. > is Python an integral part of xcb that cannot be removed for building X11? it seems like it is, but it would be nice to get an answer from the developers without wasting a lot of time digging into the xcb code. > it appears that c_client.py is the only Python file in libxcb. for that single script, installing and maintaining dozens of MB's of a high-level programming language is required? is this an accurate assessment? > is it impossible to perform the work of c_client.py using standard Unix tools? > can anyone answer please? > or direct to a location that has an answer to these questions already? > The core and extension protocol descriptions are in XML, with a program written in Python creating the C bindings. (Previous versions used m4). [from Wikipedia] > that's really insane. somebody needs to fix this. it is insane to require X11 users to install and maintain a massive high-level language like Python for such a stupid minor function in compiling a "standard" X11 library. whoever is behind that kind of decision shouldn't be developing for X11 - they're too narrow-minded, they have too little concern for various types of users that need to make use of X11, and the motives appear to be founded in personal gain and interest and not those of providing a standard X11 system to the millions of users that have been depending upon it for decades, and have been depending on somewhat intelligent development, ie, development that does not create stupid senseless burdens on the users of X11. > does anyone have an intelligent argument *for* the necessity of this nonsense, ie, demanding X11 users download/install/maintain a massive high-level language like Python to generate some C-bindings in an X11 library? if not, i will leave, but i want to provide an opportunity for someone to justify such a decision, before the issue continues elsewhere. > and the same kind of nonsense can be found in configure scripts that detect Gawk or some other GNU program, and then refuse to continue compilation without Glib, and then if you install that, then they want Iconv, and then if you install that, ./configure wants Libintl, and so on, like endless fucking GNU octopus tentacles that try to take over a users entire system. > if a user wants to compile and install X11, they should be able to do it with standard base Unix system tools, and nothing more, and if you can't handle it, don't develop for X11, go write Python scripts somewhere else. not a single reply in over an hour. after spending a couple of dozen hours playing with the X11 sources, some things became apparent: 1st, it seems that a lot of work is done by corporate interests (Redhat/Oracle/etc). non-corporate interests just don't seem to have the time or resources to participate in creating quality distributions; and this is not good. life is getting "tight" in many ways for many people. GNU stuff (detected by ./configure, eg, gawk) will demand a lot of useless GNU crap also be installed. GNU is like an octopus with a million arms to drag you down to GNU-Hell. why is GNU a Hell? Besides the fact that Gnu is Not Un*x - and is actually a perverter and destroyer of UN*X, GNU is greedy - it says "you can use this only if I can own+control whatever you do with it ..." it's communist, stingy, ...ish. it's not "freedom" or "independence" or "good-will toward others". it's dictating to others, enforcing comformity, ie, monoculturism - with a "I want to control it ALL" foundational ethic. therefore, it's destructive to humanity, vibrant color, and true diversity (which is an important foundation in technological development). it's certainly not the BSD way or FreeBSD historically. unfortunately, freedom means the freedom to be evil, but worse than that is an imperialist totalitarian agenda that states "I AM GOOD!", ie, I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERYBODY! I AM THE LAW! DO AS I SAY! (NOT AS I DO!) That is the reign of pure evil and wickedness. GNU/Linux is the "bad boy" in the govt/corp brainwashing of having "free will/choice". it's the "non-conformist's" choice in the paradigm of pure unadulterated all-pervasive conformity, despite the fact that it destroys sensible standards which are essential to real freedom and independence. finding X11 demanded pkg-config (it really doesn't, but the configure scripts fake this dependence: echo>/bin/pkg-config works fine), installing it from the publically available sources found it then demanded glib -> which demanded ->iconv which demanded -> libintl -> etc. and building glib one finds that it depends on glib to build - a stupid recursive GNUism, and there's something not right about all this - it's not software freedom - it's a software prison, and BSD's shouldn't be going along with it. not being expert at organizing or using Git/Sourceforge, etc, there ought to be some effort made to stop this, and reduce essential Unix software like X11 to "classic" make/make-install functionality, without requiring BSD users to turn into GNU/Linux users that require 64MB for a kernel they can't compile. i'm working on this personally, but it seems like at least for X11, libxcb will have to be removed - the "--disable-xcb" switch was taken out of the configure scripts a few years ago - and not that xcb is bad - but for those that enjoy minimalist type systems or prefer tight controls and management of all the permissions on a system, this type of software-globbing is just outrageous - an entire high-level language like Python is required FOR ONE STUPID X11 SCRIPT! and it's totally unnecessary. and not a single developer on the xcb IRC channel would justify it in any way at all. it's just a question on the future of BSDs. are they going to conform to Apple/Linux/Microsoft - or will any effort be made to remain true to Unix standards/sanity/roots? is the pleasure of having tons of software and popularity more important than sensibility and standards? because they are opposite directions in all areas of life. the Herd is never sensible, and always places perceived pleasure before quality standards. lead, follow, or get out of the way! :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1bk0t4-0005A4-Au>