disatisfied with xfree Why?
people felt that the developement of xfree was too tightly controlled -- only a few people could commit changes --
it's one of those artistic controll vs openness things.
like Thoreau said, but there is an argument to be made for tight controll in terms of keeping a good design and we see that in kernel the developement team and everybody thinks it's ok , xfree was set up that way.
the real gripe i think was that people would have patches to drivers like ati or the guys at sun would have to submit the patch to bugzilla and it would just sit there and not get implemented for a long time.
as for the corporate contoll of xorg -- xorg for a very long time cost big bucks to get a seat at the table.
now they are all open and anybody can contribute but all the money and i mean lots and lots of it flows from the same huge interests as before and the x developers that work on xorg work often directly for Sun and others -- so you think xorg will do what these corporations want the answer is still yes or away goes the money.
At some point you have to learn to play with the other kids, or you get to learn how to spend your lunch period alone.
true, but when people start stirring up defection and what not it's never exactly clear who is not playing nice.
I'm not saying i know the answers i just mistrust X.org
-- no longer "the X consortium" -- is now a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Jim Gettys, a developer "has been part of the X consortium almost since before there was an X Window project," said the project restructuring's main goal was "rebuilding the vibrant community we had in the early years."
which is to say we are now trusting the core propriatary unix folks with the developement of x.
and again i'm not saying this is bad because funding is important but as best as i can determine now funding for xorg is:
highest (executive) level: Hewlett Packard and Sun Microsystems
KDE and GNOME, and key Linux vendors such as Red Hat and SUSE (now Novell), occupy intermediate positions. These organizations contribute developers directly to X but keep managerial control of the developers. That means that each of these organizations contributes to the parts of X that clearly improve its own market position and development plans.
IBM and a few small companies participate at lower levels.
is seems that some of the large contributors to the old xorg like the us pentagon and alot of consulting firms are not there or are not being reported
nobody ever wants to talk about the heavy us tax dollar support that went in to MIT unix