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 214237
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: sour grapes?
by segedunum on Sun 18th Feb 2007 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: sour grapes?"
Member since:

No it 's not.

I don't see how it isn't irrelevant to an end user. As long as Beryl works, an end user doesn't care. Besides, if you look at both Beryl and Compiz they both use a bunch of hacks and neither are particularly stable for anyone to use on a day to day basis. The notion that Compiz has clean code, does things right and is stable is just laughable. If that was the case everyone would be using it. They're not.

And rightfully so... Fist and foremost the fork happened for all the wrong reasons... lies and personal rivalry.

Right. Do we have some evidence for that, otherwise this is someone just being pissed for the sake of it and doing what open source has always been about? Additionally, some people are just pissed at the attention that Beryl has got.

I dare you to come up with a list of 10 features that are only available on beryl and not on compiz. (ok, i'll five you the snow animation as an head start ;) )

So why should the above concern you or anyone else then? ;-)

Then, i dare you to make a list of all the bugs you'll find beryl but not in compiz.

Both Beryl and Compiz are buggy. Compiz is by no means a bastion of stability.

Edited 2007-02-18 22:34

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: sour grapes?
by apoclypse on Mon 19th Feb 2007 01:21 in reply to "RE[5]: sour grapes?"
apoclypse Member since:

Its not laughable, its closer to the truth than you think. The truth is that compiz when first created was a proof of concept, a prototype showing how a compositing manager should be implemented. The project took off and quinnstorm really needs credit for that as a lot of interest stemmed from that compiz branch. the issue is that regardless of what teh end user thinks, this isn't closed source software where the end justifies the means. Opensource software isn't afraid to rewrite a huge amounts of code just to clean it up, instead of piling hacks upon hacks. Beryl is hackish, it uses hacks to get things kind of working, but not properly and the real end result is that unlike compiz other window managers can't benefit from the work done in beryl. the patches the Dave is adding to the xserver will benefit any window manager that needs it not just compiz. Thats important and it shows you how selfish the beryl project has been. The licensing being the most major screw up.

Reply Parent Score: 2