Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:3484 comp.unix.bsd:12177
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsj!dwex
From: dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com (David E. Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,alt.os.bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD vs. BSD386
Message-ID: <C9JqF2.E6F@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Date: 2 Jul 93 16:42:34 GMT
References: <CPETTERB.93Jun30130928@mickey.javelin.sim.es.com> <VIXIE.93Jun30124151@gw.home.vix.com> <C9GKu0.BEB@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 60
Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgz058.gaz.att.com
[Following myself up - I know it's uncouth, but I feel it's warranted]
In article <C9GKu0.BEB@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com (David E. Wexelblat) writes:
> In article <VIXIE.93Jun30124151@gw.home.vix.com> vixie@gw.home.vix.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
> > > There are two X servers on the BSD386 1.0 release. The default server is
> > > the one from SGCS, and I can't get it to work, and there are many people
> > > who can't, but just switching to the other X server (which just requires
> > > changing which file is called), and there are no problems. If you didn't
> > > try the other server, I'm not surprised that you had problems. The reason
> > > that the SGCS server is the default is probably because it has more drivers
> > > that the other server, but they don't function as well. Don't sell the
> > > other server short!
> > >
> > > Cary
> >
> > The other server looks a lot like Xfree86, btw, which is derived from the
> > earlier (public) release of X386 from SGCS. Different lineages but mostly
> > the same code. I'm using the SGCS version ("X386-SGCS") and it works fine;
> > I just tried the Xfree86 version ("Xbsdi386") and it works fine, too.
> > --
> > Paul Vixie
> > "Be neither a conformist or a rebel,
> > <paul@vix.com> for they are really the same thing.
> > decwrl!vixie!paul Find your own path, and stay on it." (me)
>
> Any particular reason why no one at BSDI has sent XFree86 the patches
> required to build it on BSD/386? Unless they feel like porting XFree86
> 2.0 to BSD/386 (which will be a pain in the butt - the OS support in DDX
> is going to change a LOT). Sending us patches now will save them a lot
> of pain later.
>
> Just curious.
>
I just got off the phone with Rob Kolstad of BSDI. Seems this was (yet
another :-<) case of miscommunication. Rob had contacted me (at my .att.com
address) a while ago, asking if it was OK with us for them to bundle XFree86
on their CD-ROM. At the time, I had expressed my surprise and concern
about a BSDI employee contacting me at AT&T. I thought I had pointed him
at the XFree86 contact address. I also discussed with him the fact that
XFree86 didn't have native support for BSD/386, and we'd want to see the
patches when they were done.
Anyhow, somewhere the wires got crossed, and Rob was thinking that we
didn't want patches from them as long as I was at AT&T. We've now gotten
things straightened out. I also have received a set of patches to support
XFree86 1.3 on BSD/386 (from an interested 3rd party). Therefore, XFree86
2.0 will support BSD/386 natively.
Sorry for the confusion.
--
David Wexelblat <dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com> (908) 957-5871 Fax: (908) 957-5627
AT&T Bell Laboratories, 200 Laurel Ave - 3F-428, Middletown, NJ 07748
XFree86 requests should be addressed to <xfree86@physics.su.oz.au>
"How many times must good men die? How many tears will the children cry,
'til we suffer no more sadness? Oh, stop the madness. Stop all the madness."
-- Molly Hatchet, Fall Of The Peacemakers.