Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Wayland & Weston Were Forked

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Trevelyan View Post
    If the "desktop" (e.g. background picture) was a full-screen surface, then minimise could just mean stacking minimised windows behind it. Then you would only need to deal with windows being normal, maximised and full-screen. Restoring the window would mean stacking it in front of the desktop, probably as the top window.

    With minimised windows stacked behind the desktop, then doing previews should not be a problem.
    Interesting idea. Though it might require some changes, as I guess that right now the desktop is not an ordinary window, and you'd also have to make sure that it can't be resized ever. Also, I wonder, if a window is minimised, does it save some system resources? After all, it doesn't need to be refreshed (which evidently leads to some problems, but could also have some gains as well).

    Originally posted by daniels View Post
    1) No, you can't mix and match versions, since the scanner generates opcodes sequentially. So, if you insert a request in the middle, it changes the opcode of everything after it and your extension is broken.
    2) Simple: when the client binds to an interface, it sends the highest version it supports to the compositor. The compositor's then responsible for not sending events to a client it won't be able to understand since it doesn't support a high enough version of the interface.
    That's another interesting thing to know. As a matter of fact, it's a bit similar to how things like the MythTV protocol works. However, in that case there is a certain problem - what happens if the client speaks a protocol of a higher version than the backend (compositor) understands? That is, if you have an old compositor and a new client?

    Originally posted by daniels View Post
    I didn't reply to explain this at the time because every conversation with you usually ended in either a torrent of abuse (much like the recent ones where you were repeatedly threatening to try to get me fired in private, whilst acting all nice and reasonable on the forums ...) or you flat-out ignoring what I said, so my desire to go out of my way to help you by explaining how the core Wayland protocol works is roughly zero.
    It's good to know that you felt there was not enough cooperation, but please, don't perpetuate the drama, it's not helping. All of you. We get the point.

    Originally posted by airlied View Post
    you seem to have a spare s there.

    Dave.
    Oh please. Even if it was true, it's the idea that counts, the details are irrelevant. Once again, remarks like that are not helping.

    Originally posted by daniels View Post
    And this is _exactly_ why everyone is happy for you to fork Weston, but doesn't want you to fork libwayland and the core protocols. You don't understand how the versioning system works, so I can only assume you're on course to break it, and thus break compatibility between clients built against your library, and Wayland clients. That's the absolute disaster scenario we've all been trying to avoid, and this conversation has given me as little confidence of avoiding that, as when you refused to create your own extension protocol in the first place, and insisted on forking literally the entire Wayland protocol into your own project.
    Well, for one, giving more information about it is a sure way to prevent such disasters from happening, wouldn't you say? It sure beats a complete lack of cooperation.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by soreau View Post
      And the key point you're failing to understand is that I tried to ask how the core devs wanted me to do it on the mailing list. This is after querying several times on IRC in efforts to get an answer.
      A problem of your own creation: like I said, after being called all sorts of names by you, you having the gall to accuse me of being motivated solely by money and not caring a whit about open source, and then having you repeatedly threaten to get me fired, I really don't feel like spending my own time to explain to you how the core Wayland protocol works. And even when I do, you just ignore the answers you get. I'm sure many other of the 'fucking idiots' feel exactly the same way.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by daniels View Post
        A problem of your own creation
        We'll see if it becomes a problem or a solution in due time. Thanks again for your concern.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
          That's another interesting thing to know. As a matter of fact, it's a bit similar to how things like the MythTV protocol works. However, in that case there is a certain problem - what happens if the client speaks a protocol of a higher version than the backend (compositor) understands? That is, if you have an old compositor and a new client?
          The compositor advertises extension versions along with the name. So the client shouldn't be sending requests it knows the compositor doesn't support.

          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
          Well, for one, giving more information about it is a sure way to prevent such disasters from happening, wouldn't you say? It sure beats a complete lack of cooperation.
          Everyone involved with Wayland has tried to co-operate with him for the last year. Even for the ones who are still trying, he just flat-out ignores our advice, suggestions, requests and pleas, so: why bother? Nothing we say has ever made a whit of difference to his code, his decisions, or his attitude. People tried to explain the exact same thing to him when he forked and they were asking him to only fork Weston rather than Wayland, but he brushed them away as the work of people with 'agendas' against him, as if we've nothing better to do with our lives than sit around planning the downfall of Scott Moreau.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by daniels View Post
            The compositor advertises extension versions along with the name. So the client shouldn't be sending requests it knows the compositor doesn't support.


            Everyone involved with Wayland has tried to co-operate with him for the last year. Even for the ones who are still trying, he just flat-out ignores our advice, suggestions, requests and pleas, so: why bother? Nothing we say has ever made a whit of difference to his code, his decisions, or his attitude. People tried to explain the exact same thing to him when he forked and they were asking him to only fork Weston rather than Wayland, but he brushed them away as the work of people with 'agendas' against him, as if we've nothing better to do with our lives than sit around planning the downfall of Scott Moreau.
            You say we, but this has only been a cosistent issue with you and Darxus. I have not had problems of such great frustrations with any of the other quantity of wayland community members or core developers. See http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...895#post321895 Thanks.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by soreau View Post
              You say we, but this has only been a cosistent issue with you and Darxus. I have not had problems of such great frustrations with any of the other quantity of wayland community members or core developers. See http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...895#post321895 Thanks.
              I never saw you reply to this:

              Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
              I have read at least several of these people you praise so highly state your banning was appropriate. What does that tell you?

              I've also read posts by you where you insult several of the people on the same list, and also saw where you admitted that you insulted pretty much everyone on the team. If even the people you think are great and helpful still get insulted by you, doesn't that imply that your insults might have been a bit indiscriminate?
              - http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...132#post322132

              Comment


              • #37
                Stop fighting

                I would like to maybe divert you guys to more positive directions, by first starting with an example of how things went wrong, and then proposing a new paradigm. Maybe instead of forking, you might want to work on an entirely new desktop paradigm, one that makes the desktop future-proof.

                One of the reasons Macromedia Flash is so problematic is that it's a plugin. It does not have direct access to the browser's DOM, nor do scripts on the page have access to the internal DOM within the Flash object. They are two separate entities, running in two separate threads. Flash, being somewhat "dangerous" because of the kind of functions it exposes, is executed in a "sandbox" which is supposed to keep it from doing any damage to the system. If only Flash was an "engine" that offered accelerated rendering, and advanced animation functionality, and exposed those functions to the DOM, people could script using those advanced functions using JavaScript instead of ActionScript. Also, since all flash objects are actually within the browser's DOM, the Flash functions could work on ANY HTML Element, be they tables, div's, span's, etc. Imagine the possibilities, the richness. And I argue that the VIDEO element would probably not have been invented if Flash had just done this one simple thing, of exposing their functionality as functions inside the DOM instead of keeping them separate in their own proprietary container.

                I see this as parallel to the way current Window managers function alongside X. Instead of introducing specific behavior into the core window manager, I would instead just expose raw functionality. In other words, Animation functionality, Effects, Shaders, etc. And I would then allow scripting it all. You could have packages that define the UI/UX language, that are written in either JavaScript or ChaiScript or really any scripting engine. As long as they have access to the "DOM" (In this case being Desktop Object Model), they can manipulate the objects on the desktop. One might produce a Metro UI clone, using a bunch of scripts that manipulate the DOM. Or really any other UI. It could be 3D, or 2D, or 4D! It could even be networked into some additional nodes on the cloud where some of your desktop element could live on. Once you have a DOM which can be serialized into JSON objects, the potential is infinite. Imagine how simple it is then, to share an application across networks? Yours looks the way you like, with your graphics and eye candy, but the substance, the "juice" of what you're viewing, is transferred to someone else's desktop, and there, his own UI Scripts apply their own animations and eye candy to the same application/content, and they see it the way they like.

                I believe this is where Desktops will eventually go. There will be a DOM (Desktop Object Model), there will be "plugins" that introduce eye candy features, shaders, effects, maybe physical modeling effects, plugins that fetch data from the net and inject them into the DOM, etc. And there will be the underlying engine which just lets those plugins access the hardware via some HAL. This is the kind of desktop I would love to have in the future. A desktop where everything can be scripted. Where I can decide myself how windows are maximized, and where I can decide that if some window is maximized, I want to trigger certain specific actions, like lower the priority of all other applications, if the window I just maximized is a Media Player and I want to watch a movie without other apps bothering me or using the CPU too much (Just one example, I'm sure people will come up with amazing things once they have a DOM and plugins that allow scripting the DOM).

                So yah, instead of wasting time arguing about an old and defunct desktop model, why don't you invent something awesome like this?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Darxus View Post
                  Yes I was wrong and shouldn't have lashed out so harshly. I did a apologize before I was banned from IRC but apparently it had gone too far in Kristian's eyes. See http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...874#post321874

                  <soreau> well all I can do is offer my apologies
                  <soreau> I can't go back and undo what I said or did

                  Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by soreau View Post
                    You say we, but this has only been a cosistent issue with you and Darxus. I have not had problems of such great frustrations with any of the other quantity of wayland community members or core developers. See http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...895#post321895 Thanks.
                    You keep saying that, but we weren't the ones who banned you from IRC and kicked you off the mailing list, nor the only ones pleading with you to only fork Weston and not the entire core Wayland protocol and client libraries.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by daniels View Post
                      You keep saying that, but we weren't the ones who banned you from IRC and kicked you off the mailing list, nor the only ones pleading with you to only fork Weston and not the entire core Wayland protocol and client libraries.
                      The problem is that you guys are key factors in my frustrations that led to the harsh outlashing. Even right now here on phoronix, you just wont let me walk. Please just let it go and accept the fact that what's done is done and over now.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by soreau View Post
                        The problem is that you guys are key factors in my frustrations that led to the harsh outlashing. Even right now here on phoronix, you just wont let me walk. Please just let it go and accept the fact that what's done is done and over now.
                        You say that like you didn't just message me on the blue, unsolicited, on IRC to call me a 'pathetic loser', say that things had '[blown] up in [my] face like a firecracker', etc.

                        First you complained that no-one was willing to explain to you how the core protocol worked. Now when people you do you complain that no-one leaves you alone. And in the meantime, out of the public eye, you're rolling out unsolicited abuse. And that's a one-line summary of Why Wayland & Weston Were Forked. Goodnight.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by daniels View Post
                          The compositor advertises extension versions along with the name. So the client shouldn't be sending requests it knows the compositor doesn't support.
                          Interesting. But what if the client depends on some feature that is not present in the old version of the compositor? Some extension that didn't exist back then? Is that something the client should take care of, or should the compositor be the one that refuses such connections?

                          Another issue that I can think of is feature deprecation. If you have an extension in version 1, and then decided that it was a poor idea to have it as a single extension and split it into two extensions in version 2, does it mean that the compositor is forced to maintain the deprecated extension, just to satisfy old clients?

                          Originally posted by daniels View Post
                          Everyone involved with Wayland has tried to co-operate with him for the last year. Even for the ones who are still trying, he just flat-out ignores our advice, suggestions, requests and pleas, so: why bother? Nothing we say has ever made a whit of difference to his code, his decisions, or his attitude. People tried to explain the exact same thing to him when he forked and they were asking him to only fork Weston rather than Wayland, but he brushed them away as the work of people with 'agendas' against him, as if we've nothing better to do with our lives than sit around planning the downfall of Scott Moreau.
                          Sure, he can be very rude when he's angered, but that's really no reason to provoke such a response deliberately. If he doesn't take your advice, so be it, but don't end up not even trying. That will only make matters worse. Also, what's done is done, nobody can change the past, but you can still change the future.

                          Originally posted by soreau View Post
                          You say we, but this has only been a cosistent issue with you and Darxus. I have not had problems of such great frustrations with any of the other quantity of wayland community members or core developers. See http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...895#post321895 Thanks.
                          And you should also try to take into account what the Wayland developers are saying, because they usually know what they are saying. Also, the main reason why people feel that you are not worth cooperating with is your tendency to lose control under pressure. Try and control that, and I'm sure people will have an easier time. For one, so far you're not doing too bad on this topic, just try and stick to the technical side rather than on the drama.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by soreau View Post
                            Even right now here on phoronix, you just wont let me walk. Please just let it go and accept the fact that what's done is done and over now.
                            If you wanted them to let you walk, why did you bash them in your first post? You really think you can bash people, and then get upset that they won't leave you alone when they respond?
                            Last edited by TheBlackCat; 03-29-2013, 06:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by daniels View Post
                              First you complained that no-one was willing to explain to you how the core protocol worked.

                              Wrong. I said that I wanted to know how the wayland developers wanted me to program it correctly so it's suitable for upstream inclusion. You are sadly a mess of intentional confusion.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by soreau View Post
                                Yes I was wrong and shouldn't have lashed out so harshly. I did a apologize before I was banned from IRC but apparently it had gone too far in Kristian's eyes.
                                So, if they allowed you back, would you be able to avoid similar behavior in the future?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X