‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, April 5, 2021 11:25 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 10:37:25PM +0000,
rosea.grammostola wrote:
Somehow they need backup to get some authority
apparently.
Gotohttps://jackaudio.org and look around. Do you see NewSM there ?
It's not even in the applications list (it probably should be).
Also please try to understand the difference between
1.
https://new-session-manager.jackaudio.org and
2.
https://jackaudio.org/new-session-manager.
or for that matter
3.
http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org and
4.
http://linuxaudio.org/kokkinizita
and note that what we have is (1) in both cases, and (2) does
not exist.
That means e.g. that
https://new-session-manager.jackaudio.org
not a part of the
https://jackaudio.org site as it would be
for (2). They just share a host.
We're the official NSM.
There is nothing
onhttps://new-session-manager.jackaudio.org/ that
says so. There is this:
'The goal is to become the de-facto standard music session manager
for Linux distributions.'
IMHO there's nothing wrong with that. Every author would be very happy
to see his/her brain child become the de-facto standard.
That's exactly one of the problems. It's not their brainchild. NSM is the
brainchild of the developer of Non-Session-Manager (NSM). newSM as you call it, is a copy
of it.
That's why I raised the question, which version should be on jackaudio.org? The
original or the fork? Fork A or fork B?
This leads to the next problematic situation, that the JACK maintainer is also the
initiator and maintainer of the NSM fork. Guess which version he chooses now and in the
future. There is a conflict of interest here... again... unfortunately.
I've two points against the fork, a ethical and a technical.
I don't like how the brainchild of the original author is totally hijacked by some
people, hijacking
linuxaudio.org for it in the same time to make this possible. Fons, I
don't think I've to quote your responses to the way they forked and the names they
gave it. You used even stronger words then I did, which says something. The end-result is
that the Non author removed his source code (temporarily?) from the web in anger and
despair.
It's also harsh that the original author had very good technical arguments to reject
solutions to problems, which he thought they where the wrong analyses of the problems or
the wrong solutions. He gave several options to implement solutions in a different way,
which where in line with the ideas behind NSM instead. I agreed with him most of the
time.
Harsh if the above points means that the fork gets a place on
jackaudio.org, while the
ethics of how this fork has been forked are far off and the technical implementations
disputable.
These questionable ethics and disputable technical solutions would be much more arbitrary
and not part of the discussion here if they would just stick with the NSM api (which they
do, if I've to believe it, but that's questionable as well) and if they would put
their fork on a own website.
Using
linuxaudio.org or now
jackaudio.org makes these matters far more problematic. Then
it becomes a community issue and then there then it's more a matter of, who has the
most power or the best connections in the community.
The situation with regards
linuxaudio.org was more principal for me. I feel I've less
to say about
jackaudio.org, but here is my take on it:
Keep the NSM fork separated from
jackaudio.org, (especially until all the ethical issues
are solved). Avoid conflict of interest between the JACK maintainer and his NSM fork.
Don't 'pollute' the JACK project with the ethics and discussion about the NSM
fork. Don't make the JACK project (indirectly) responsible for it, in any way.
Put the NSM fork on it's own website or on the website of it's authors, kx.studio
or
laborejo.org.
Give a short explanation on the
jackaudio.org website about session management, e.g. NSM
and link to the original API and if you like to the forks API (but they where the same...)
if you like.
Throwing another $0.02 in the box. Not much cents left... ;)