On 2012.09.17 09:52, Peter Stuge wrote: > The Linux backend has been worked on quite a lot and by different > people while the Windows backend is much younger and is principally > the work of one person - so there are several differences, and the > odd new one is discovered now and then. :\
Congratulation, Peter, this will be your FINAL warning. The next post you send to this list, where you feel an overreaching need to be dismissive of the Windows backend, or any aspect of libusbx that you simply don't like for that matter, you will be banned. And I might add that I will not hesitate to go over what the other libusbx administrators may wish, and do so without consultation (which may ironically prove a point you have been trying to advocate previously that libusbx was really _my_ fork). The reason I'm not planning to spend too much time justifying such a drastic action is that I feel I've already spent/wasted enough time (more than 2 years) at libusb elaborating on how having you solely in charge was bad news for our users, before enough of a majority seemed to rally to that opinion on their own and wanted to do something about it. I am therefore not planning to spend an additional 2 more years trying to prove something that is also extremely obvious to me: that this list _will_ be a lot better off without someone from a competing project posting of disparaging comments and trying to discourage our users at any opportunity they get. But, let me further explain why the comments above are once more utterly derogatory and do very much qualify for yet another notice. 1. If you look at the git history for libusb, up to around the time I joined the project, which was shortly after the 1.0.5 release, you could very much say that, even more so than how the Windows backend appears to you today, libusb was was mostly the work of one contributor (Daniel) and was also a "young" effort, since it was even "younger" than the Windows backend is today. Interestingly though, I have not once seen you say hat libusb was "young and principaly the work of one person" at the time. I also don't recall you being dismissive of the OS-X backend as mostly the work of Nathan whenever someone comes with a new potential OS-X issue, which, if you go with the standards applied above, would probably qualify. Objectively then, one can only deduce that you statement is not about providing facts, but purely about opinion, and disparaging at that. 2. This will account for yet another one in a series of posts where, whenever someone reports a potential issue about the Windows backend, you feel compelled to reply in one way or another (more often than not, with little helpful content), and start your post by being dismissive about the stability of the backend itself. The problem however is that this "unstability" of yours has not been backed up by facts (at least not ones you have been able to provide the numerous times I put you to that task), and I now have a long history of debunking various issues you were eager to present as bugs in an attempt to scare people off, that weren't bugs at all and had nothing to do with stability. 3. Much more damagingly, non content to try to insult my work on the Windows backend, your opinion of which I don't exactly care about (as long as you aren't trying to scare off users), you are now trying to negate the effort of the _many_ people who have also contributed to it, many of whom did so in a non negligible manner. As such, you are explicitly insulting Orin, Michael, Stephan Meyer, Alan Ott, and others, whose contribution to the Windows backend code was significant enough to have them listed in the copyright notices (check these out sometime - I could also add Vitali... and yourself, when it comes to the threading breakdown, which was initiated by the Windows effort), as well as the many people not appearing explicitly in the copyrights, but whose contribution to the Windows backend has been no less significant. For instance, if I check the current libusbx AUTHORS list, I believe that close to, if not more than, half of the names you'll find have helped with the Windows effort in one way or another. Furthermore there are other people, not appearing in the AUTHORS list, that could be added right along with the ones listed in the copyright, as they also have been no minor contributors to the Windows backend effort. Thus, as much as I would like to claim the Windows backend as "principally my work", I am exceedingly aware, as well as extremely grateful, that nothing is further from the truth. That you should therefore attempt to deny that a great many people have contributed to the Windows backend, and dismiss the effort of the very same community you are supposed to belong to and lead, is beyond belief. 4. Finally, in that last statement about "odd differences", one can almost hear you trying to devise a way to say "bug" without explicitly writing it. Well, all I can say is: good luck with trying to make that one fly below the radar, take people for fools, and venture beyond a line you have been warned many times about not crossing already. At this stage then, and through your various posts to this lists, especially any of the ones pertaining to the Windows backend (the last of which before this one was that weird delayed question about using open(NUL) to obtain an fd), I have accumulated enough circumstantial evidence to be confident that you have a lot less interest in providing constructive contributions to the list than to attempt to disrupt our processes and scare our users. As such, you need to be aware that next time you feel like expressing an unwarranted dismissive opinion on the mailing list of a project that is in direct competition from the one you are supposed to lead, you will find yourself banned, and that I will do so on my own account without further warning (though I will post a short notice to this list to announce that you have been banned if that occurs). If you really feel compelled to do so, you have ample opportunity do dismiss the libusbx effort or the Windows backend on the libusb project, so keep it there. Besides, if you actually spend more time "focusing on the code", you may even be able to prove that you can do a better job, and provide actual evidence for a change that people should be weary about using libusbx or the Windows backend. Regards. /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
