zlacker

[return to "The X.Org Server just got forked (announcing XLibre)"]
1. throwa+9[view] [source] 2025-06-06 10:37:14
>>throwa+(OP)
Well-known developer Enrico Weigelt just forked the X server from freedesktop.org after getting the boot [0].

[0] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests...

[1] https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/commits/xlibre/prepare/

◧◩
2. chrism+04[view] [source] 2025-06-06 11:25:46
>>throwa+9
“Getting the boot” is rather vague. Is there any more information anywhere, background, &c.?

My general impression (quite possibly incorrect) was that X.Org Server is largely treated as “done”, making only bugfixes and such these days.

◧◩◪
3. JimDab+E4[view] [source] 2025-06-06 11:32:36
>>chrism+04
From the readme:

> That fork was necessary since toxic elements within Xorg projects, moles from certian big corp are boycotting any substantial work on Xorg, in order to destroy the project, to elimitate competition of their own products. (classic "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics)

> This is an independent project, not at all affiliated with BigTech or any of their subsidiaries or tax evasion tools, nor any political activists groups, state actors, etc. It's explicitly free of any "DEI" or similar discriminatory policies. Anybody who's treating others nicely is welcomed.

◧◩◪◨
4. metta2+O8[view] [source] 2025-06-06 12:13:07
>>JimDab+E4
Doesn't "DEI" basically mean treating others nicely?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. msgode+ga[view] [source] 2025-06-06 12:24:55
>>metta2+O8
No and it never has. The default position on the internet, the one technologists working on open source always took, is that only the ideas matter and if your ideas are good you'll be included. DEI became popular because that wasn't good enough for certain groups of people who consistently failed to produce good ideas and wanted to wedge themselves in anyway.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. MrArth+he1[view] [source] 2025-06-06 19:36:59
>>msgode+ga
Yeah, from a non-US citizen views, this type of policy feel like target discrimination against certain groups of individuals.

And the message sent is disastrous. Personally I am part of people who have big advantages with actual DEI policy, but I am firmly against that, because I want to be employed for my skills, not because I fit a quota or anything like that.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. dragon+te1[view] [source] 2025-06-06 19:38:51
>>MrArth+he1
> this type of policy feel like target discrimination against certain groups of individuals.

Every policy is targeted discrimination for or against certain groups of individuals (and you can invert the group and make the same policy switch from "for" to "against".)

The question is what group of individuals.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. subsis+ui1[view] [source] 2025-06-06 20:06:46
>>dragon+te1
> Every policy is targeted discrimination for or against certain groups of individuals

Lol are you talking about "discrimination" on the basis of task-relevant skills?

Until 20 years ago, nobody in OS cared who you were IRL, your gender, ethnicity etc. In many cases they didn't even know, plenty people only contributed under pseudonyms. Hard to believe for people who only joined the show after social media had become pretty much mandatory, and the "I don't care who you are IRL"-crowd got drowned out by "who you are IRL is the most important thing, not what you contribute"-crowd.

[go to top]