Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Mar 2007 15:25 UTC, submitted by Shadowline
Thread beginning with comment 221837
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-09
From what I understand, it seems like beryl will try to use the compiz-core (with possibly some minor patching to hook on Beryl-specific functionality) and diverge on everything outside of compiz-core. Of course, Quinn hasn't confirmed this yet (
http://lists.beryl-project.org/pipermail/beryl-dev/2007-March/00030... ) so I could be wrong. But if I'm right, then you still don't know how much has changed unless you do a diff between each code base.
What can be said, however, is that Compiz *does* benefit from Beryl despite your claims that nothing is given back. Unless this post is incorrect,
http://www.johnstowers.co.nz/blog/index.php/2006/10/02/beryl-the-co...
Compiz benefits from several plugins that have been ported from Beryl and placed in the compiz-extras package.
Anyway, why be so hostile? Forks are a fact of life in open source and one if it's key evolutionary strengths. If the fork doesn't produce any real value, it dies (e.g. the old GoneME fork of GNOME). If it produces real value, it either kills the parent (e.g. EGCS forked GCC because it disagreed with the development process and then won over the GCC group when it succeeded) or competes with the parent (e.g. X.org versus XFree86).
So if you're right, Beryl will die. If you're wrong, it'll live. Let time sort this whole thing out.