Talk:Compiz

“Compiz is dead” vandalism

I'm not interested in lengthy discussions. Any further “Compiz is dead” vandalism will be reported. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I don't see why that would be vandalism. In that case you could mention any contribution as vandalism IMO. RoestVrijStaal (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

New Compiz 0.9.x releases are done frequently. The shape of the web presence has nothing to do with that fact. Any claim of uncertainty and/or death are made up by you and therefore vandalism. Either accept that or face the consequences. I will report you. That's my last warning!

Both http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/ and https://code.launchpad.net/compiz-core show code contributions by various developers. Their blogging habit does not matter. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And you didn't feel like to add that info to the page? Why don't/didn't you do that, to prevent further confusion at the masses? I bet that another person would think / add the same like i did.

Also, could you guarantee that Compiz is compatible with every common desktop envirioment (read GNOME, KDE, XFCE and LXDE) like 8-5 years ago?

What worries me more is that you're rather like to threat me with "I WILL REPORT YOU. THIS IS MY LAST WARNING!" instead of explaining (and proving) why i was wrong RoestVrijStaal (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

“And you didn't feel like to add that info to the page?” – The info is there! The infobox is regularly updated after a new release was made available. I’m not here to teach you reading skills.

“Also, could you guarantee that Compiz is compatible with every common desktop environment (read GNOME, KDE, XFCE and LXDE) like 8-5 years ago?” – I do not need to guarantee anything. You have to prove incompatibilities if you add that claim to the article. If you modify articles, it’s your duty to do read and conform to basic Wikipedia rules. There is a “Please note” section under the edit box with a giant headline!

“What worries me more is that you're rather like to threat me with "I WILL REPORT YOU. THIS IS MY LAST WARNING!" instead of explaining (and proving) why i was wrong” – I am not the type of person who misuses Wikipedia as social network as many do. I’m not here to make friends (I have real life for that). I am also not the person who is active in any mentoring group or whatever. I have no interest explaining any detail to any random Wikipedia user. Find someone else if you want lengthy explanations/discussions. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

[...]The infobox is regularly updated after a new release was made available. [...] As you could see, it's almost a year ago that there was a stable release of Compiz. Isn't that noticeable when a praised Linux vendor acquired one of the main developers of a project to 'support' that project?

Because it's a year a go that a stable release of Compiz is out, and most of all desktop environments had a jump in the release cycle, I think it's legit to ask that. From the other hand you don't prove that one DE is compatible to the stable Compiz, nor you give clearance about who is working on this project since Canonical stole the main developers. So you're only blaming here.

I don't also want to make friends here. But I don't like it to get threaded like the way you do. I'm just asking things to replace myself in your position to understand you. As I could see from edits from others, I could conclude that you've 'claimed' this page as your backgarden, and every modification from someone else which doesn't fit your opinion or view, will get reverted. RoestVrijStaal (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I just revert any edit that is not encyclopedic work. It has nothing to do with who made it. But hey, go ahead an call Compiz dead in this article. As I’ve already stated, I don’t have any friends on WP and don’t intend to make any. So when I report you, the judgment should be impartial.

I can’t imagine anyone in his/her right mind would call a software project with a stable release just one year ago and development releases on a weekly to bi-weekly basis dead. That’s why I’m confident impartial judgment will declare your “death” edits unencyclopedic and you’ll have to deal with whatever consequences may result in that.

I, for one, am done discussing. You go ahead and take your chance… if you like. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Should 0.9.x be listed as a stable version?

Currently, Compiz 0.9.x is included in most mainstream distros, and is used by default in Ubuntu (including the upcoming LTS version, which relies on stability). Should it be listed alongside 0.8 as a stable version? Just want to have your opinions. Zombifier (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think that 0.9.x is meant to be the stable version. Problem is that the unmaintained website says different: It lists 0.8.x as stable and some older 0.9 branch as development. We can't just claim any official stability without proof. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Found proof: https://launchpad.net/compiz-core/0.9.7 says “STABLE compiz 0.9.7 series. Stable fixes only please.”

https://launchpad.net/compiz-core/0.9.8 is the current focus of development but no pre-release was made so far from that branch. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. Zombifier (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to remove www.compiz.org URL from the article

See, this is hopelessly outdated. I've even contacted Sam Spilsbury via mail once, and he confirmed that all current work is done on the launchpad platform. Plus, the forum accessible from "compiz.org" is entirely orphaned - with the last entry being around 2008 (read: FIVE years ago). Hence, keeping this URL is simply no longer a sensible thing to do. -andy 77.190.20.150 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)