Re: Quick question... Is this project dead?!

It is true that Mark, Andrew, and Phil are quite busy, and development stopped 
because Andrew was supposed to make some major underlying changes. However, 
these changes don't seem to be happening and Mark and Phil will likely not 
have time to actively develop (or develop at all) in the near future.

That doesn't mean that Y is not a good idea, or that Y can't go somewhere. 
Perhaps it's just time for a code fork or a rewrite based on Mark's original 
design. Y+ has been brought up frequently, but I don't think (and many will 
agree with me) that the underlying framework for a windowing system should be 
object-oriented. The higher-level structures, perhaps (see the perpetual KDE 
vs. GNOME debate), but certainly not the framebuffer and such.

The options are therefore 1) fork or 2) rewrite. Sitting around isn't going to 
get us anywhere, as Phil and Andrew have repeatedly said, because it's more 
of a private project than anything.

On Monday 17 January 2005 12:12 pm, Kimmo Sundqvist wrote:
> On Monday 17 January 2005 13:51, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> > On Monday 17. January 2005 11:15, JP Dinger wrote:
> > > Which was kind-of his point. A pity you now too seem to prefer a list
> > > without subscribers over one carrying actual discussion, which I, and
> > > seemingly others, thought it was created for. Ah well.
> >
> > I just joined this list a week or so ago, and
> > most of what I've had the "pleasure" of seeing are these sorts of posts
> > where all you can do is whine about what gets posted.
>
> It's been like this the whole year.  Truth is, the "cabal" of Y isn't
> hiding anything from us.  They have said many times that everything is
> public and everyone sees the same code.  But, by custom and by ownership,
> they hold the keys to the project.  If they said something about a rewrite
> a looong looong time ago, then that is what everyone's been waiting for and
> expecting.
>
> > Maybe some developers are too quiet, maybe they are overly busy with
> > other things.  Who cares?  If people asking how they can help are truly
> > being told to piss off...which I am guessing is an exaggeration...then
> > that's a problem for the list maintainers to address.
>
> In practice it is not an exaggeration.  The "cabal" (I think that is Andrew
> and Mark) has refused to communicate about the details, or at least
> Andrew's style has been so discouraging that nobody has ever tried.
>
> And if the list maintainers are "the problem", sitting on the project and
> living their lives as if it didn't exist, then who are you gonna call?
>
> > If you want to work on something, post about it.  After you've finished
> > it, post about it.
>
> Only to hear that the code is useless, because the Y, as far as it was
> done, is going to be scrapped for a second try.
>
> > If you are in a bad mood about the content nobody is
> > forcing you to read, then kindly route your message to /dev/null and have
> > a nice day instead of bothering all the subscribers
>
> The "whiners" are not some annoying minority, preventing all constructive
> work and discussion.  They are the disillusioned majority that is calling
> for discussion and constructive work.  Do a second round of "who are you
> with and who are you against."  Or maybe there is nobody left to be
> against.  People are just announcing they found out the fate of this.
>
> Now that it's clear there hasn't been any rewrite, the project either dies
> or everyone starts coding for the Y that now exists, even if it desperately
> needs the redesign and rewrite.
>
> > This
> > constant back-and-forth bickering and silly mock threat commentary about
> > leaving the list and so on is completely ridiculous and childish.
>
> It is not constant.  It probably started a moment before you joined. 
> People are doing it after having high hopes for almost a year or so.  And
> it is based on good, mature and factual disappointment.
>
> By talking about a disappointment I'm not implying that Andrew or Mark were
> some kind of hucksters that misled anyone.  I think all this was basically
> a misunderstanding about the rewrite of the whole Y.
>
> > Please don't respond to this email.  Just let this thread die.  If you
> > wish to flame, kindly do so privately.
>
> This thread is the most mature, serious, necessary and the most
> problem-solving thread this list has ever seen, and nobody's going to kill
> it.
>
> -Kimmo S.

-- 
---------
Jonathan Harper
[email protected]