Re: [Libusbx-devel] help/doc needed

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