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."
Thread beginning with comment 213941
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Beryl deserves its props.
by anshu on Sat 17th Feb 2007 22:20 UTC
anshu
Member since:
2005-09-03

Beryl deserves its props.

Users didnt move to beryl just because if it was Compiz fork. they flocked for a good reason and the user base kept increasing for a good reason too.

developers kept cracking code at break-neck speed (as compared to Other X projects) and it just keeps getting better and better. Dont trust me? then take a look for yourself >> latest svn install of beryl on my HP laptop (opensuse) http://youtube.com/watch?v=dJO6CLln-B0 .

really, i read nothing but sore grapes regarding david's words.

Edited 2007-02-17 22:24

Reply Score: 3

RE: Beryl deserves its props.
by Headrush on Sat 17th Feb 2007 22:41 in reply to "Beryl deserves its props."
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

No one is knocking Beryl developers.

I don't put much merit into the "choices" of most end users either. I hate this argument for anything as most users are sheep and have no understanding of underlying technologies. (Windows as an example)

Maybe for a game you can get away with the end result looks OK system, but for any project that will future projects will build on, it's just as important how you get to that point.

People take these things too personal and read way too much into it. Its a difference in methodology: get things working now and adapt for future changes when they come, or only build "proper" solutions and get to the end result when all is ready.

Is either right or wrong, no, but we all have our preference to approach. Stating which doesn't mean you have "sour grapes". All he stated was he thought that methodology was wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Beryl deserves its props.
by anshu on Sat 17th Feb 2007 23:04 in reply to "RE: Beryl deserves its props."
anshu Member since:
2005-09-03

humm ok agree. so its like , for some how you get results (in proper way) matters, and for some How fast you get results and developments matters. and it looks like I choose to be with faster horse ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Beryl deserves its props.
by molnarcs on Sun 18th Feb 2007 02:05 in reply to "Beryl deserves its props."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

developers kept cracking code at break-neck speed (as compared to Other X projects) and it just keeps getting better and better. Dont trust me? then take a look for yourself >> latest svn install of beryl on my HP laptop (opensuse) http://youtube.com/watch?v=dJO6CLln-B0 .

And what was the result, really? Yes, there is more bling, and I like that, but we see a release process that is going nowhere, as beryl devs are frantically importing new stuff from compiz in late RCs. I've seen people downgrading from RC2 to BETA releases, because they were more stable. This is something I've never seen before - software in beta stage usually stabilizes over time. Beta stage means no new functionality, no extensive code changes, just fixing bugs and stabilizing the code. This is especially true in RC stage, and yet, you have an RC2 release that proved to be a regression over RC1 which had regressions for some people over BETA2 - something is not right with the beryl project management right now.

And I mention this as a happy beryl user - luckily, I didn't have problems with beryl since beta2, upgrades worked for me (except window preview plugin, which instantly crashed the wm, and since this occured for almost everyone, it was even disabled in the port temporarily). These are my beryl screenshots:
ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/personal/screenshots/beryl/

So I'm not speaking as a disgruntled user, and I can make a video and post it to youtube to show how incredibly fine beryl is, but I don't, because I regularly read beryl-forums, and it is rather incredible what I see there: people experiencing probles that were not there before when going from BETA to RC1 and from RC1 to RC2. The sheer amount of bugs people experience is frightening, and I write this because actually I want Beryl to succeed, but I just don't see where it is heading: it is chaos!

What's more, David has a very good point about licensing - it just seems an absolutely bad decision to change the license so code can only flow in one direction. I wonder why Quinn did that, really. I don't see this post of David as insulting at all, in fact, he urges more cooperation and laments the fact that Quinn apparently does everything in his/her (I'm not sure about the gender here, David uses him while I always assumed a she) power to make that impossible (but the license change is the most obvious and pointless one).

In other words, I'm concerned - this is not an anti-beryl post, I just want things to be better for everyone.

Reply Parent Score: 5