- To: "John Fortin" <fortinj at ibm dot net>, "'XFree86 over CygWin mailing list'" <cygwin-xfree at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Subject: RE: XGGI Update
- From: "Suhaib Siddiqi" <ssiddiqi at inspirepharm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:52:36 -0500
John,
I am putting a new firewall, therefore removed some of the old IP
filtering. During this proccess ORBS quried my SMTP server and got
in
while it was exposed for a few hours... now I canot post to lists
;-(
Can you please try to forward a copy to list, please?
>
> >
> > At no point in time I mentioned about splitting
> cygwin-xfree. I realize the fantastic work done by you,
> mike and fortin till now and sorry if you felt like that.
> However, I am not sure the methodology cygwin-xfree is
> using is the right approach (basing on xfree86, using GGI
> layer over and above directx and not concentrating on GDI
> based X-Server). That does not prevent me from
> contributing to the project.
> >
>
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, not another flame war on the
> various merits, right or wrongness, GDI vs DirectX,
> approaches. EVERY approach has pros and cons associated
> with it. The GOAL is to have a free X-Server available.
> The more types, the better.... But lets get at least one
> working first...
>
Basically that is what I mean. I wrote to Karra for
misunderstanding.
I did not mean it.
> >
> > > Since I have X code setup for Cygwin, MSVC and
> working on MingW32
> > > I could look at your code and help you port to other
> compilers.
> > >
> > Please give me some time. How can I learn about
> cygwin/mingw if I take your help for porting without
> atleast giving it a try myself ;-)
> >
>
> But again, why reinvent the wheel if it is not needed.
> Suhaib has a great deal of experience with the various
> compilers and the source. So to me, if I wanted to get
> something done efficiently, I would use the available
> resources (namely Suhaib).
Every one is welcome to contribute and I comfident we will have
excellent X-servers functional in the near future.
Suhaib
>