[FusionComm] Truly disappointing

Sat Jul 7 17:06:37 CEST 2007

On 7/5/07, Guillaume Seguin <guillaume at segu.in> wrote:
>
> 2007/7/5, Sam Spilsbury <smspillaz at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/4/07, Alyssa Hung <deciare at isisview.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:03 am, RYX wrote:
> > > > Hi everbody.
> > >
> > > Hello. Good to see some activity on the mailing lists again; though
> > > endless debate may be a bit much, complete silence isn't that much
> more
> > > savoury. ;)
> > >
> > > > Those people who cried for a combined community still prefer hanging
> out
> > > > on oc.o and still aim at having their own community where they can
> be
> > the
> > > > kings - even though we finally agreed with nearly 100% of their
> wishes
> > and
> > > > requests. Nobody of the so called "beryl devs", except Danny, ever
> came
> > to
> > > > compiz.org for announcing new ideas or helping users - if they come
> at
> > > > all, it is for bitching, nitpicking or correcting people.
> > >
> > > I am awaiting the proper setup and announcement of the unified forum.
> > > Whether that is at forum.compiz.org, compiz-fusion.org, or elsewhere,
> I
> > > believe waiting for an announcement would be wiser than making
> > > assumptions, as many of us have been said to do in the past.
> > >
> > > Please don't interpret my patience as mere inaction. I am ready to act
> > > on specific implementations of the details pertaining to the forums'
> > > eventual future.
> > >
> > > > Users come to the compiz forums and tell me that they tried compiz
> and
> > > > beryl but nothing worked for them, so now they installed "fusion"
> and
> > want
> > > > help with it - likely because of being misinformed by "other
> sources".
> > > > Seriously, this mess has created such an incredible amount of
> > > > confusion that especially the community has to be informed about
> what is
> > > > going on. And before that, we should create some roadmap or targets
> to
> > > > show them (hint, hint).
> > >
> > > I've been trying, and continue to try, to refer to Compiz as the one
> > > project. There are several structural challenges that I haven't been
> > > able to ignore, however.
> > >
> > > Most notably, when people make suggestions for plugins that are
> > > currently distributed together with Compiz-Core, such as Cube or
> Rotate,
> > > I can't help but think that the features requested may be be
> implemented
> > > for quite some time; it has traditionally been the style of developers
> > > who contribute to Compiz-Core to be patient and prudent about choosing
> > > what to implement and how to implement it. The same goes for features
> > > that may require Core changse to implement, such as being able to show
> > > thumbnail previews for minimised windows.
> > >
> > > Bug reports pertainig to components distributed with Compiz-Core are
> > > also tricky. Weeks ago, I filed a bug report to the freedesktop.orgbug
> > > tracker (Bug 11331) about inconsistent key binding behaviour in the
> > > Scale plugin. The bug has not received any replies; was it received
> and
> > > reviewed by any of the developers involved? Bug reports to oc.o aren't
> > > always resolved quickly, but they _have_ been resolved.
> > >
> > > I was asked why Blur and Reflection won't work with the same hardware
> > > that used to work fine with BlurFX in Beryl, and after going through
> his
> > > configurartion, I had to admit that I honestly don't know. Maybe some
> > > combination of Beryl's plethora of allowances and workarounds made the
> > > hardware work without needing a "proper" fix, such as a driver-side or
> > > server-side correction. Is Compiz-Core ever likely to implement such
> > > workarounds...?
> >
> > I've debated with myself to answer regarding technical details, but
> AFAIK,
> > workarounds such as these will probably be implemented in a separate
> plugin
> > level (See GrisWorlds 'Workarounds' plugin). A lot of the methods used
> by
> > beryl were somewhat slow and unstable. (Please do not take that comment
> too
> > seriously because I do not know the technical merits.)
> >
> > Regarding BlurFX and reflection, they used something that avoided the
> use of
> > pixel shaders (But BlurFX used pixel shaders where they were available).
> The
> > problem with correcting rendering/ driver problems within Compiz-Core is
> > that they can come and bite you in the back or break something else,
> because
> > they are *workarounds*.
> >
> > Again, I'm not a developer, but this is AFAIK. If any developer wishes
> to
> > correct me, please do ;-)
> >
> > > I want everyone to be happy with their compositing manager, and to
> show
> > > that Compiz can work for everyone, but when I'm asked questions like,
> > > "Why can't Compiz do ____ when Beryl can? Isn't Compiz Fusion supposed
> > > to be better?" It's hard to think positively when there are still
> > > feature regressions and compatibility regressions going from Beryl to
> > > Compiz (seemingly directly caused by conflicting philosophies between
> > > the past and the present), and there seems to be less developer
> presence
> > > than ever.
> > >
> > > The divisions between Beryl, Compiz, and Compiz Fusion don't exist
> > > entirely in the minds of misinformed people... To those with problems,
> > > those with ideas, and those on the receiving end of stymieing bugs and
> > > usage scenarios, the structural challenges that separate Compiz from
> > > Beryl are very real.
> > >
> > > I _want_ this project to succeed, and _try_ to make it successful in
> the
> > > ways I can as a user. I'm sure many users want a compositing manager
> > > they can be proud of and really get behind. But wanting isn't
> enough...
> > > As many suggestions as we offer and as much assistance as we provide
> for
> > > each other, there's little we can accomplish without good faith from
> the
> > > developers.
> >
> > Yeah, we need to post a list of current functional regressions and what
> is
> > and what is not possible. (Technically) There is already one on
> > obby.opencompositing.org and functional regressions are few and far
> between.
> > I'm not a developer, but I do sort-of know that by adding
> hook-interfaces to
> > core-plugins, we can actually add these features in separate plugins,
> > instead of destablizing the core plugins. Hopefully, most of these will
> be
> > corrected soon.
> >
> > > > Let me ask you one question: what do you all expect to happen once
> we
> > > > have a combined website for the combined project? I'd (still) really
> > like
> > > > to hear your answers on this ... We still have no goals, roadmap,
> > > > merge-agreement or "peace-contract". Well, as long as we have ten
> > > > different packages and a website the rest will come by itself,
> right?
> > > > Sure.
> > >
> > > I expect for community resources such as wikis and packages to be more
> > > cohesive.
> > >
> > > I wish to see more developers being accessible; whether that means
> more
> > > forays into the forum, greater participation on the non-dev IRC
> channel,
> > > a greater tendency to act on bug reports and feature requests, or
> > > otherwise showing the users that someone is listening, and someone
> cares.
> >
> > Regarding IRC channels, #compiz-fusion should be split into
> >
> > #compiz-fusion (For general compiz-fusion talk)
> > #compiz-fusion-dev (For development only) (i.e code)
> > #compiz-fusion-support (Obvious)
> > #compiz-fusion-web (For web-discussion, such as the blog / forums)
> >
>
> There's already #compiz-fusion-dev. Once things are setup, there's no
> need for a #compiz-fusion-web, and any web-related discussion could
> happen in -dev.
> There's no reason for a -support because users would come in
> #compiz-fusion first anyway and ask their question there before being
> redirected to -support where they would find the same users/idlers.


Ok, I've just noticed that sometimes users are redirected between channells
because they aren't opn topic ;-)


> > I hope that users "misinformed" about the nature of Compiz Fusion may
> > > truly be misinformed rather than being simply misunderstood.
> >
> > Announcements FTW ;)
> >
> > > I would like to see Compiz thriving alongside other compositing
> > > managers, perhaps evolving beyond its scope as a mere compositing
> > > manager at some point, instead of being killed by the first serious
> > > competitor that comes along (read: KWin).
> >
> > KWin != problem IMO ;)
> >
> > > > btw: I still work on the new layout, but if it means that the
> > > > compiz-forums have nearly no support whenever I am not around, it
> shows
> > me
> > > > how interested everyone is in a "combined community" and immediately
> > puts
> > > > my motivation back to zero ..
> > >
> > > Does that depend on which forum we consider the Compiz forum? I'd
> rather
> > > not set the mood for unifying our communities against the backdrop of
> > > this chilling distinction.
> > >
> > >
> > > ~Alyssa
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Community mailing list
> > > Community at lists.compiz-fusion.org
> > > http://lists.compiz-fusion.org/mailman/listinfo/community
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Community mailing list
> > Community at lists.compiz-fusion.org
> > http://lists.compiz-fusion.org/mailman/listinfo/community
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at lists.compiz-fusion.org
> http://lists.compiz-fusion.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.compiz-fusion.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20070707/5043bb96/attachment-0001.htm