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 214000
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: sour grapes?
by on Sun 18th Feb 2007 01:22 UTC in reply to "sour grapes?"
Member since:

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;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

RE[2]: sour grapes?
by molnarcs on Sun 18th Feb 2007 01:49 in reply to "RE: sour grapes?"
molnarcs Member since:

Yes - as much as I like beryl (I use beryl instead of compiz because there is no port for the new compiz GUI in FreeBSD, and I hate gconf) I must say that the real work is still done by David - like the solution you referred to.

Beryl went from beta stage to rc stage. I expect software in the beta stage to stabilize over time: no extensive changes, no new functionality, fixing bugs and stabilizing the code, that's what BETAs and especially RCs are for. And yet, this is not what's happening. RC1 was a huge regression over Beta2 - our port maintainer had to disable a newly introduced plugin because it instantly crashed the wm. Just browse through the posts on beryl-projects forum to see what I'm talking about, or see the comments below the RC2 announcment: People are actually now downgrading to BETA releases, because they are more stable than RCs - this is unheard of, and quite ridiculous.

The fact that beryl devs frantically import extensive changes from compiz at such late RC stages speaks volumes of the importance (and quality) of the work done by David! Please, even if you like beryl (just like I do), have at least the respect for him that he deserves for his work, and don't mock him with "sour grapes" kinda comments - it is unfair.

Reply Parent Score: 5