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. MrArth+Nk1[view] [source] 2025-06-06 20:24:58
>>dragon+te1
I haven’t remembered any policy like that in past decades, for my country even more ( in the US you have to go back to apartheid to find policy who are discriminated against group of people)

And in context of work or anything like that, the only policy who actively discriminate is the skill, and I don’t place this in the same level of DEI because you can acquire more skill, but you cannot change your color skin or origin for example.

[go to top]