On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 09:01 +0300, Jari Rahkonen wrote:
> be it due to ideology or any other reason.

We all should be aware that those other reasons you allude to are not
simply other political ideals. We should concern ourselves with the
exclusion of users with different hardware(1), with the sustainability
and longevity of proprietary codebases(2) and the increased costs to us
in investing in them(3).

I know there are plenty of people who object to ideologies, but we
should at least agree that proprietary code comes with hidden costs that
we must carefully weigh up on any decision to adopt new technology.

My own opinion is that application software has no business talking
hardware APIs and that a path should be beaten through xorg or another
graphics stack or library to at least give the opportunity to flatten
out the support for the functionality and not just offer it to other
graphics hardware but also to other application software too.

This is just the wrong level for this.

Martin,

(1), ATI, Intel and some SIS, with standards like opengl being important
for cross support.
(2), See all the studies done on the mess created in propritary
development, see the ati proprietary driver for a perfect proof. I don't
even want to see the nvidia code base tbh.
(3), Increased complexity of the rendering engine at this level would be
very bad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel