Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 5/18/20 7:08 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:03:16PM -0500, Ty Young wrote:
Willing to bet you or anyone else here won't.
FYI, this applies to you as well.


You just proved my point:


>If it was Open Source and we were having this discussion, people like yourself would just move the goalpost by saying something like "Why don't you contribute?" like you always do. You don't care about fixing the problem, you >just want the drivers to be Open Source and in the kernel. The issue itself be damned, you don't care whether it *ACTUALLY* gets fixed or not.


You create these problems by refusing to play nice and then attempt to use it as leverage in order to attack people/organizations that don't bend the knee. In actuality the issue itself is just a stepping stone that isn't really cared about.


A Gnome foundation member did this this exact same thing on Reddit recently, where graphical glitches would appear *only* on GTK windows that use the unified headerbar and were maxamized/de-maximized. The headerbar only part wasn't originally mentioned, and since the user bringing up the bug was using Nvidia, Nvidia was the one to get blamed for it. Once the unified headerbar only part was mentioned did the foundation member back track. It's why I don't believe for a second that issues like the Gnome 3 memory leaks while running Nvidia is Nvidia's fault. People point fingers based on who they like and agree with, not on technical facts.


Crying wolves if there ever was any.


(Yes, I know there are very real situations where Nvidia isn't playing nice themselves, but this isn't the case here)


I'm not advocating for in-kernel drivers. AMD with their drivers has proven proven what a bad idea that is. I, for the most part, like where I'm at and the way Nvidia does things. If I'm against it, I don't see why I would be the one to do it.


Surely it is the responsibility of those who want such a change to make sure that everything that existed before can continue to exist? I realize this requires that such arguments are being made in good faith and consider the perspectives and needs of everyone, which they aren't.




 - Solomon

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux