On Tuesday 15 October 2002 11:40, Marius Nita wrote: > [...] > > > I don't mind if people decide to change things. What I do mind is > > spending weeks preparing for a release after > > changing/revising/rewriting massive amounts of code, and then once > > it's released someone just decides to scoop it up and readd their > > changes. > > [...] > > > As I mentioned above, this started because of me being a bit annoyed > > over some of the things that have been happening lately. > > This is obviously downright unfair, because xor was an important part of > the 0.65 release. Saying that openbox "scoops up" your genius code is > loaded with glibness and ignorance. This is the central part of my gripe > with your statements. You get across the impression that you see us as a > gang of charlatans looking to cheat you and steal from you.
I'm sorry if this is the impression I gave you. I did not intend to hurt people's feelings. > Looking at the blackbox code, I could also do like you and start > bitching about you stealing our Font.cc, taking our Configuration.cc, > modding it and calling it Resource.cc, taking our XAtom.cc, modding it > and calling it NetWM.cc. I would also point out that while blatantly > ripping off XAtom.cc, you didn't even bother fixing our very obvious > design flaw: the use of reinterpret_cast. You ripped it verbatim. I > could further point out that you took our ideas on using namespaces and > a pretty direct rip of XEventHandler from the openbox3 repository. > Looking at it that way, all your new blackbox code is ripped off from > openbox, your only innovation being the fact that you made a lib/ > directory. You did all this while not bothering to patch us on any of > our bugs or design flaws. Well, that's disheartening. Scooping up our > stuff like that just ain't cool. > (Remember, the issues in this paragraph were posed hypothetically.) The Font.cc file showed up because we needed a Font class for the lib shaleh and I are putting together. The actual class at the moment is very simple and incomplete, I plan on doing much more with it in the future. The Resource.cc file is probably very similar to your Configuration.cc, but I did *not* take your code, modify it and then commit it as my own. I wrote that class to be small and simple, without looking at other people's code. The Netwm code is shaleh's code, so I will let him comment on it. (On a side note, the reinterpret_cast is probably wrong, and should be a static_cast instead, but I am not very knowledgable about C++ casts, so I can't say for sure). The event handler class is a design decision I took since shaleh and I agreed that the Widget class I had originally written in my moving_target branch was too heavy. We started using a single namespace because this is something that shaleh and I have discussed since before 0.65.0 was event started. We wanted to have a way to keep the library code and the window manager code separate. To be honest, I didn't even know that openbox used namespaces. I have never looked at the openbox code, so it is pure speculation on your part that I took your code and fitted to my needs. Another thing that I do not have the time or desire to do is work on 2 separate window managers heading in 2 separate directions. The current focus for blackbox is to make the bt library complete enough to write small tools quickly. I would only be guessing about the direction for openbox, so I won't add fuel to the fire with speculation. > That kind of pales in comparison to the stuff we > took from 0.65: some bugfixes and some rearrangement of the Workspace > class. The fact that we bothered to sync was your benefit, not ours; by > syncing we discovered bugs which resulted in fixes for you and your > grand 0.65 release. ... and both shaleh and I are very grateful for those fixes. > So you see? Things aren't black and white. Say thank you that you have > (well, had) more than 2 pairs of eyes on your code, and other people are > willing to patch you. Say thank you that we have a top-notch keygrabber > that will work with your Netizen-less blackbox. Say thank you that you > have a very similar code base to look at when you code a feature that we > already have. I am grateful that we get fixes like this from other people. Blackbox would not be where it was today without such code contributions. The keygrabber and reference code is something that I don't use, haven't looked at and can't really comment on. > All of the sudden it looks like Openbox is a huge benefit to you, while > Blackbox doesn't really help our users at all. > > It's all of the sudden become about _you_ and _us_ in some sort of a > race. Openbox didn't start as some sort of Fork of Doom that was > supposed to take you out of the "coding wms for free" business. Had > shaleh accepted and incorporated the patches that the current openbox > users wanted, Openbox wouldn't exist. It was started by the users, not > by xor and woodblock. I don't see how this is a race. I am working on things that I want to work on, improving things that have been deficient in blackbox for a *long* time. Only recently did I get the time to really start working on this. > So please, stop complaining about the things that are beneficial to you. > You being able to look at all of the openbox features is far more > important than us being able to look at buggy rearranged code and man > page patches. (No offense, Sean.) But maybe this has deeper > implications... Are you pissed off that your users will now say "Oh, > cool now blackbox does what openbox does" instead of frantically > cheering your name? > > And don't take this the wrong way. I have a massive amount of respect > for your work ethics and abilities. This time, however, you took me by > complete surprize. If you would like to continute discussing the issue, > perhaps you should outline the things that bother you. Calling Openbox > "a hack" and saying that Openbox' ability to load user-designed xbm > buttons is stolen from your menu code is pretty strange. Much less > founded than if I said that blackbox cvs was a ripoff of openbox. Also > the whole "scooping up" issue is garbage. Again, much less founded than > if it was said the other way around. The original reason that this started was mostly because of the text I saw on the openbox webpages this weekend. The original text stated "Openbox was previously know as Blackbox." That angered me a bit. The feeling I got from reading this was that the openbox crew intended to replace blackbox. I am pretty sure noone intended this, but it's just the feeling I got. And then, I find out that openbox has implemented a feature (the configurable bitmaps) that I had been considering for blackbox (an idea I had while writing screwing around with stuff in my moving_target branch). Looking back at the irc log, I was a bit off base, and I should have been a little more compasionate and not quite so defensive (ie. "hey, that idea turned out to be pretty cool" instead of "hey, that was my idea, damnit"). I spoke my mind and stepped on a few toes with the comments I made on irc. I am sorry about this, I did not mean to start a shouting match between the 2 camps. I'm sure we would much rather be looking at code :) > Thanks for reading my novel, > > marius. -- Bradley T. Hughes - bhughes at trolltech.com Trolltech AS - Waldemar Thranes gt. 98 N-0175 Oslo, Norway -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://asgardsrealm.net/lurker/splash/index.html Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
