Timothy Miller wrote:
So, we had a nice long discussion on the deficiencies and excesses of
OGA1, then we figured out that not everyone fully understood what its
proposed features were, etc.
What conclusions can we draw from this discussion? Any thoughts on
change of direction? Slight or major adjustments?
Only a peripheral observation. I had the very distinct feeling that
discussion was more than anything else triggered by the audio stuff
going around on the list.
Even though I myself didn't mind the discussion (A is the part of AV I
actually like) and you made clear the audio stuff was just a discussion
about a possible revenue-stream project, I know it made me wonder a bit
about the status/direction of open-graphics. I saw a number of remarks
from others in that same direction as well. One conclusion could be that
further audio talk (if any) might be best off spun off to its own list.
As to the discussion itself; I did read most of it but generally came
away from it with the feeling that the voiced criticism was based on a
much more "deeply embedded" view on the open-graphics project than I
personally maintain. Most of it seemed to be taking away from the nicely
generic "Just Works" (in a PC context) chip that I myself would like to
see happening.
As said, peripheral. I trust people with some actual clue about graphics
will be making some more specific comments :)
Rene.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
