Comment Re:Wow. What a load of crap. (Score 5, Insightful) 470
Well, I was thinking to not to enter inside this discussion, but... just to be precise :
1) I asked *many*, but really *many* times to Alexandre, on mailing lists, on IRC and to many other people about what would be the "right" design for an engine, but *never* got an answer.
Well, to pe precise, I just got *one* people answering me kindly, and it was Dan Kegel, whom I thank very much for its support. I tried also to ask Huw both in irc AND by mail, but no answer at all, even not a simple "sorry, no time for that".
So, please, don't tell me that I didn't ask or I didn't want to follow the right way, that's plain wrong, and you'll see it if you loose some time reading *all* posts on wine-devel about.
2) My design started with Jesse's one, right, then tried to merge Huw's one, because somebody told me that Huw's was the "right accepptable" design.
After loosing some time on it, and "without any feedback" from Huw nor Alexandre, besides one laconic "I don't think a multi-author stuff is accepptable", and after loosing most of time to keep my ongoing driver in sync with wine, I had to give up with that solution and think about a new one.
The *only* people involved with former designs that spoke to me was Jesse Allen, and I appreciated that really. After the laconic comment above, I lost about one week splitting the engine by author's commits. That was a large work, because I rewrote most of the code, but, as that was the *only* comment got so far, I was hoping that doing so I could rise the hope to see the engine inside wine.
Keep in mind that also in previous works I DID KEEP the original copyrights inside code, even when there was just a code line from original author.
3) At the end, tired of having to loose 80% time to rebase the engine and 20% time to improve it, and after getting to the conclusion that Huw's approach wasn't the best one (also well explained in mailing lists), I decided to start over with a brand new design.
So, again, please don't tell me that I ignored the long, hard part of the job.
It I should say that all, your "long, hard part of the job" contained almost as many bugs as code lines.
So, please again, *before* look at code, *then* comment.
The only part I kept from original Huw's design is the line drawing functions, and also those hardly patched and corrected.
4) If you'd be honest, you'd have reported ALL the content of my "too much work" comments. Those were referred to "too much work in hopeless tasks", which was the true stuff.
I don't code for job, nor I want to do it. I code for fun, because I like Linux and I like wine.
I've made small contributions since many years. That said, I, and I guess I'm not alone, don't like to loose my time, even if it's for fun. If I make a patch which is rejected with a *good* reason, I can try to improve it and to repost it; if the patch gets rejected because "it's not right", "it's a pain to review", "it's too commented" (yep, I got also that one.....), I simply keep it on my tree and go on.
5) The DIB engine was an effort for a stuff I needed, and taken further because it seemed to me that many people were interested about. It's not a "wonder patch" (never said that, but, again, you should just read mailing lists...), it's not perfect, it's not complete.
But, it works. On most apps, and is passing all (well, all -1 because lack of time lately) tests of wine suite.
It makes some apps simply usable, point. It's not a code masterpiece, nor it wants to be.
it's fixing a long standing bug to some extent, and it will do it 100% given enough time.
It's an *unpaid* work of 1 people for some monthes. If I should value it's time on my current's job time, you'd be surprised by the amount.
6) I don't know much about Codeweavers, just that they offer good compatibility for many important apps, and I appreciate it... And I find it right that thay earn money on it. Opensource doesn't mean "for free", of course.
I don't even know if a DIB engine is embedded in crossover products, nor it's important to me.
NOR I hope about a fork of wine project. We've got enough forks on Linux/unix, sometimes that's good, most times it's a bad stuff, too many resources are lost on it.
Ciao Max
1) I asked *many*, but really *many* times to Alexandre, on mailing lists, on IRC and to many other people about what would be the "right" design for an engine, but *never* got an answer.
Well, to pe precise, I just got *one* people answering me kindly, and it was Dan Kegel, whom I thank very much for its support. I tried also to ask Huw both in irc AND by mail, but no answer at all, even not a simple "sorry, no time for that".
So, please, don't tell me that I didn't ask or I didn't want to follow the right way, that's plain wrong, and you'll see it if you loose some time reading *all* posts on wine-devel about.
2) My design started with Jesse's one, right, then tried to merge Huw's one, because somebody told me that Huw's was the "right accepptable" design.
After loosing some time on it, and "without any feedback" from Huw nor Alexandre, besides one laconic "I don't think a multi-author stuff is accepptable", and after loosing most of time to keep my ongoing driver in sync with wine, I had to give up with that solution and think about a new one.
The *only* people involved with former designs that spoke to me was Jesse Allen, and I appreciated that really. After the laconic comment above, I lost about one week splitting the engine by author's commits. That was a large work, because I rewrote most of the code, but, as that was the *only* comment got so far, I was hoping that doing so I could rise the hope to see the engine inside wine.
Keep in mind that also in previous works I DID KEEP the original copyrights inside code, even when there was just a code line from original author.
3) At the end, tired of having to loose 80% time to rebase the engine and 20% time to improve it, and after getting to the conclusion that Huw's approach wasn't the best one (also well explained in mailing lists), I decided to start over with a brand new design.
So, again, please don't tell me that I ignored the long, hard part of the job.
It I should say that all, your "long, hard part of the job" contained almost as many bugs as code lines.
So, please again, *before* look at code, *then* comment.
The only part I kept from original Huw's design is the line drawing functions, and also those hardly patched and corrected.
4) If you'd be honest, you'd have reported ALL the content of my "too much work" comments. Those were referred to "too much work in hopeless tasks", which was the true stuff.
I don't code for job, nor I want to do it. I code for fun, because I like Linux and I like wine.
I've made small contributions since many years. That said, I, and I guess I'm not alone, don't like to loose my time, even if it's for fun. If I make a patch which is rejected with a *good* reason, I can try to improve it and to repost it; if the patch gets rejected because "it's not right", "it's a pain to review", "it's too commented" (yep, I got also that one.....), I simply keep it on my tree and go on.
5) The DIB engine was an effort for a stuff I needed, and taken further because it seemed to me that many people were interested about. It's not a "wonder patch" (never said that, but, again, you should just read mailing lists...), it's not perfect, it's not complete.
But, it works. On most apps, and is passing all (well, all -1 because lack of time lately) tests of wine suite.
It makes some apps simply usable, point. It's not a code masterpiece, nor it wants to be.
it's fixing a long standing bug to some extent, and it will do it 100% given enough time.
It's an *unpaid* work of 1 people for some monthes. If I should value it's time on my current's job time, you'd be surprised by the amount.
6) I don't know much about Codeweavers, just that they offer good compatibility for many important apps, and I appreciate it... And I find it right that thay earn money on it. Opensource doesn't mean "for free", of course.
I don't even know if a DIB engine is embedded in crossover products, nor it's important to me.
NOR I hope about a fork of wine project. We've got enough forks on Linux/unix, sometimes that's good, most times it's a bad stuff, too many resources are lost on it.
Ciao Max
