I have seen Novell’s henchmen go after Roy, however.

Not to sound like I’m bashing. I think it’s definitely frustrating for the devs at AMD, and especially the ATI branch. However, I’m ecstatic that the Radeon and RadeonHD drivers can at least be under an open license for all. That means theoretically, free distros such as gNewSense will be able to have 3D support!

At least there’s a bit of silver lining in that.

It also wasn’t stated that a bunch of developers left all at once. The email said developer count has gone down (lately?). To ignore the beryl situation is what is foolish. Clearly, you can’t expect everyone that went over to contribute to beryl instead of to compiz to put out a press release if a reason for such a move was their new degraded/distrusting opinion of Novell’s business, do you?

I do think this deal was significant. In their shoes I think I would want to change course as soon as I could. It is a sad thing because other relationships/ties and opinions don’t all change at once, and no one wants to abandon a serious investment if you are still interested in it. People also oftentimes don’t like to jeopardize their jobs if they aren’t in the mood to move, don’t have something else lined up, etc.

And I also suggested in a later reply that some of these developers might even have gone to work for Microsoft or be working for Novell or for anyone else in private but perhaps also on similar technology.

Why would people be so sensitive to what happens to Novell the company? Fork and change direction and be at peace and doing what you love.. or not I suppose.

A site like this is not going to be good for the blood pressure of anyone that is very attached to Novell.

I agree with your other comment that I do look for the Novell angle. I’ll say that my reason for looking for a link to them in this case (and maybe in most other cases) is because if I were in the shoes of the affected party, there is a high prob that I would have eventually left (forked/etc) for just that reason. I am not the only developer that feels this way as has been pointed out by a number of other developers.

Novell is not the only one making deals with Microsoft, but they appear to me to be the most dependent on Microsoft and working on the most significant contract for Microsoft.. at least of the players that were recognized at some point to be strong community members and who today are publicly and actively still developing.

I am very much against Monopolysoft’s business agenda; hence, I am very much against this role Novell has taken on. Pro-FOSS developers aren’t *all* just going to quit their jobs over this deal, and there is only so much they could have done or can do today to undo the impact of this deal.

I rest knowing affected Novell employees probably have fair recourse, and enough of those staying on ship or recently hired probably like the overall goals of the deal. They may even be hanging on waiting for a takeover or employment offer from Microsoft. They may have other offers lined up, but will wait it out some more. ETC.

This site aims to help protect “community assets” and is not primarily focused on protecting Novell’s hide by any means. Roy, correct me if you disagree.

Got any comment on the actual post rather than the single point you nitpick, and quite illegitimately so, IMHO?

1. they’d have said so (the anti Microsoft-Novell crowd are a very vocal group)
2. they’d have left back in early 2007 (instead, in early 2007 the Beryl project merged back with Compiz). If those devs were against the Microsoft-Novell deal, why would they merge?

I know you guys like to live in a world where companies are guilty of your accusations until proven innocent, but the reality is that they are innocent until proven guilty. Since you guys have no supporting evidence to show that any of the developers leaving the project are leaving due to the deal, you guys lose – especially since your theory doesn’t even make sense based on the history.

You periodically make references to some amount of communication happening in private (duh). Judging by my experiences with you and this site, I would say that forms the minority of communication.

In any case, IRC logs and comments on articles are public and open for comments. As others have pointed out, you usually leverage newsfeeds and stories that most people also access or learn about quickly enough.

If I didn’t appreciate the content that is so frequently posted here (yes, it has flaws, blah blah), I would not waste so much time on this time sink. Linux Today is a greater time sink. I truly do try to stay away from posting, but some days it’s not worthwhile to even try.

I think Novell and Microsoft have other forums where they can lead the discussion in pro-Novell ways. These corps don’t offer fair and balanced. This blog serves as a counter to that. Roy *might* help his cause to be more balanced, but that would definitely affect the number of ideas being put out. This site is alpha development. The quality varies. Some of the more widely useful material gets linked to from other more conservative/balanced sites. A lot of the information is very useful nonetheless. Many blog pieces have no or mostly supporting comments. Some with dissenting views don’t even focus on anything substantial. Take the case with this thread. A suggestion was made (and past examples exist as pointed out) that the MS deal may have something to do in some way with some developers leaving compiz. Wow! Sit back and watch the January 2nd carryover fireworks.

FWIW, from the best I am aware, this case is one of a few instances where I was quoted at the top of an entry on this site. Also, I believe Roy did me a favor in this one case [ http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/ ] and in another one (can’t remember the topic this second) based on a request I made in the threads (or in email). I agree with Roy in substance (if not in every detail) in many cases, and I guess he thought that particular message was important enough even though he doesn’t completely agree with all aspects of it (those following along can probably tell).

I think this compiz situation is interesting and not surprising. If you read my other reply there, you’ll see I am not necessarily assuming ill-will by Novell in saying this issue of losing developers isn’t surprising. There is some sort of pattern of late, and you don’t even have to be against the MS deal to recognize it. [There may be many other patterns, but this one is something that is brought to attention by places like this site. It's the "task" of those in favor of Novell to research and bring up other patterns. I'm sure Novell and Microsoft have plenty of resources to dedicate to that matter and do.. perhaps on their websites.]

Hmm, Dan, let me be specific on one thing (in case you don’t read my other reply). What we have is one developer making some comments. There is no other reason unless we want to research more to believe the accuracy of that comment. However, taking it at face value, iirc, the reason for the loss of devs was never stated. I obviously go into the article with the Novell-MS deal card at least in the back of my mind. I don’t remember reading anything to suggest that the deal would be ruled out as a reason for developer losses. If I had been a compiz developer, I would have left ship (forked/etc) for just this reason of the MS deal.

However, as suggested in my second reply on LT, some of those devs missing in action might even be working for Microsoft now. Maybe not.

Does someone want to shed light instead of just pointing out the obvious (and unlikely case) that another possibility is that none of the devs lost were lost because of the MS deal (or the much more possible case that *some* didn’t leave because of the deal)?

I find that amusing that they — those who accuse the site of being a “conspiracy theory” — are themselves those with crazy theories.

Communication in this site is done openly (public IRC, comments, etc.), so they can see for themselves all the cogwheels. They can even get involved.

I’m glad I commented there again before coming to this thread since I was relaxed and in a polite mode (this thread may not have affected me, but this is a high intensity forum so you never know).

Roy, I do suggest Novell-MS angles whenever these come to mind as Dan and/or others noted above (defensive thinking). I also post here (though not nearly as much as some others). It’s fair to call me a henchmen then. I’m not insulted because the comments speak for themselves.

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-01-02-002-35-OS-SW-0001
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-01-02-002-35-OS-SW-0002

@Roy: Contributors rarely have any control outside their own articles. Contributor is not the same as “editor”, either.

For me to collect a couple of comments and repost them has you consider Jose a contributor of this site. I’m fine with that.

True, it’s to do with control.

Or…

the development team decided that the fork had come too far from the original Compiz

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the changes were significant and maybe the original Compiz developers took the conservative approach and decided that they didn’t want to risk the merge? Maybe they felt it was too risky.

Seeing as how they re-merged later, it seems to me it couldn’t have been about control.