(also, please note that I do not consider beryl as the fork, but the cvs
versions many moons ago with extra patches applied - this was the fork
and it's several months old - beryl is just a name change IMO).
I think this is where you are wrong, if you studied the code then you
will see a major
change of attitude and plugin compatibility since the beryl fork.
My 3 FACTUAL examples are
1) Deciding to implement their own versioning system which is slightly
incompatible
with compiz. NO technical benefit whatsoever (in fact a slight
disadvantage). They
initially tried to justify the decision by saying that the plugins would
need to be
modified, then promptly changed their design so the plugins had to be
modified.
2) The recent plugin communication system. This adds a very big hurdle
to making
plugins compatible between beryl and compiz. Also it means that beryl
has 2 different
ways of communicating. PLUS a new coding style was introduced to make
things that
bit harder (Just as I thought that was 1 thing the 2 projects could
agree on).
3) Configuration system broken so that only csm works. There is no
technical reason
why there should be only one settings manager. People should be able to
use gconf OR
csm with beryl, but for some reason it was decided that csm was the only
option.
csm is flawed in a few respects. This started a few weeks before the
fork, but has
continued along the same lines (making plugins incompatible).
Until the beryl supporters can come up with valid reasons for this and
my previous
issues then I cannot take them seriously and I dont think anyone else
should either.
_______________________________________________
compiz mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz
