Tweet
Myownfriend
Let's check all the "lies" one by one:
1. "He's also told people multiple times that he blacklisted people when he didn't."
I do have people blacklisted, Michael can vouch for that. I can post a picture if you'd like. Sometimes I open forums in a private browser window to see the replies that I'm missing.
2. XFCE developers said "We do not have the resources to maintain our own Wayland compositor" - this has not changed even to this date. XFWM4's Wayland fork was created by a person not on the XFCE core development team. The fork has not even been merged into the XFWM4 repo. Go check it. XFCE devs have so far fixed some bugs (but not all) in the XFCE panel and some applets to make them work under Wayland. Many features, including global keyboard shortcuts are not usable in any shape or form under an XFCE Wayland session (yes, the manual to run XFCE under Wayland with a third-party compositor has long been available).
3. "Here he says that libWeston isn't a shared library, that he wasn't saying that Wayland should include a drawing API, just a graphics output API, and that Weston isn't a reference Wayland compositor because it's just used for Wayland development."
Point 1, libweston: you misinterpreted those words completely. I said it was not used by a ton of Wayland compositors. I said the way it's created was not sufficient to build a full-featured Wayland compositor.
Point 2, Weston:
* To my best knowledge not a single Wayland desktop environment or WM uses Weston.
* When I was talking about a reference compositor with drawing APIs I meant this issue which is not resolved and not going to be resolved any time soon.
4. In the comment right afterwards I quote where he specifically said "Wayland should have a decent low level drawing toolkit akin to Win32" , not a "graphics output API". In other words I showed that he was lying about what he said.
I stand by my words, Wayland does need "a decent universal low level drawing toolkit akin to Win32". Everything else that you wrote was quite tangential. There was no lie.
5. I then explain what the terms "reference implementation" and "shared library" mean. I then ask him if he knows what the ".so" at the end of "libweston-1.so".
My gripe with Wayland has always been this issue. You continue to turn my words inside out to show that you were right and I was ... lying.
Not only I was not lying (and you've not caught me doing so at all) but we were talking about completely different things. I could have said something wrong but only because I lacked knowledge. And as people have noticed I do apologize when I find myself being wrong. I've not seen any other Open Source fan here on Phoronix ever apologizing for saying something wrong.
Never in my entire bloody life I've ever tried to lie about Linux/Open Source and anything related to it. Your whole message and accusations are beyond disgusting and horrible. Why would I even lie while contributing non-stop to all major Linux projects, including the kernel, GCC, KDE, Gnome, Firefox, Wine, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand the "logic" behind your accusations.
Let's check all the "lies" one by one:
1. "He's also told people multiple times that he blacklisted people when he didn't."
I do have people blacklisted, Michael can vouch for that. I can post a picture if you'd like. Sometimes I open forums in a private browser window to see the replies that I'm missing.
2. XFCE developers said "We do not have the resources to maintain our own Wayland compositor" - this has not changed even to this date. XFWM4's Wayland fork was created by a person not on the XFCE core development team. The fork has not even been merged into the XFWM4 repo. Go check it. XFCE devs have so far fixed some bugs (but not all) in the XFCE panel and some applets to make them work under Wayland. Many features, including global keyboard shortcuts are not usable in any shape or form under an XFCE Wayland session (yes, the manual to run XFCE under Wayland with a third-party compositor has long been available).
3. "Here he says that libWeston isn't a shared library, that he wasn't saying that Wayland should include a drawing API, just a graphics output API, and that Weston isn't a reference Wayland compositor because it's just used for Wayland development."
Point 1, libweston: you misinterpreted those words completely. I said it was not used by a ton of Wayland compositors. I said the way it's created was not sufficient to build a full-featured Wayland compositor.
Point 2, Weston:
* To my best knowledge not a single Wayland desktop environment or WM uses Weston.
* When I was talking about a reference compositor with drawing APIs I meant this issue which is not resolved and not going to be resolved any time soon.
4. In the comment right afterwards I quote where he specifically said "Wayland should have a decent low level drawing toolkit akin to Win32" , not a "graphics output API". In other words I showed that he was lying about what he said.
I stand by my words, Wayland does need "a decent universal low level drawing toolkit akin to Win32". Everything else that you wrote was quite tangential. There was no lie.
5. I then explain what the terms "reference implementation" and "shared library" mean. I then ask him if he knows what the ".so" at the end of "libweston-1.so".
My gripe with Wayland has always been this issue. You continue to turn my words inside out to show that you were right and I was ... lying.
Not only I was not lying (and you've not caught me doing so at all) but we were talking about completely different things. I could have said something wrong but only because I lacked knowledge. And as people have noticed I do apologize when I find myself being wrong. I've not seen any other Open Source fan here on Phoronix ever apologizing for saying something wrong.
Never in my entire bloody life I've ever tried to lie about Linux/Open Source and anything related to it. Your whole message and accusations are beyond disgusting and horrible. Why would I even lie while contributing non-stop to all major Linux projects, including the kernel, GCC, KDE, Gnome, Firefox, Wine, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand the "logic" behind your accusations.
Comment