Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Feb 2007 18:45 UTC, submitted by GhePeU
X11, Window Managers David Reveman writes: "I'd like to get all of you updated on the compiz related things discussed at the X developer conference that was held last week. My talk was mainly focused on 'what's next' and how to get desktop compositing in X to the next level." He also discussed the fork: "I had the chance to talk to Quinn Storm from the beryl project during xdevconf. I would have hoped that the current situation with beryl could be improved but it seems like Quinn at least isn't interested in that. However, after talking to Quinn it's very clear to me that the fork was partially motivated by assumptions that were wrong."
Permalink for comment 214000
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: sour grapes?
by kondzior.p@gmail.com on Sun 18th Feb 2007 01:22 UTC in reply to "sour grapes?"
kondzior.p@gmail.com
Member since:
2007-02-18

1. To try to point out that Beryl's improvements have been "temporary solutions and workarounds." OK, but provide a little evidence before expecting people to believe this statement.

2. To claim that everyone is working on the fork, and not on Compiz, and that's not fair. Tough.


AD. 1 I think much of evidences was submited in that letter good example is input redirection, anather could be fragment program attirbute that was acctually ported by beryl developers to beryl from compiz few days ago, if beryl have blurfx why they port this ? If Kristian Lyngstøl thinks that compiz code provided by David is so bad ? (And he dont give any evidences for that:/) Why other beryl devs still "branch" compiz ? If he thinks it is bad he shuld show code that will fix right ?

AD. 2 Well i think you must go hear http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=xorg/app/compiz.git;a=blob;h=47d29...
its pretty long list imho.

Most of Beryl users seems to dont see the main problem that David is trying to touch.

Reply Parent Score: 5