“We already had history with Jonathan; when we tried to do a few things
that were useful to us but not within his design, sometimes even minor
things like allowing to use 64x64 icons or having an option to export
the whole session as a tar file, we were met with insults.”
I'm not seeing any insults in there, just a detailed explanation from Jonathan for why he didn't want to merge it. I don't understand the full technical details, but it's clear he gave it a lot of thought and there was a difference in project philosophy.
"Every time I look at LV2, I am repulsed. LADSPA is KISS, one header file dependency and relatively straight-forward. LV2 is like the opposite of KISS. It's like FART: Forget About Representing Terseness. It reminds me of something from IBM. The dependency is like 6 different little libraries that no one will ever use for anything else. And all that this complexity really buys you is shitty in-process GUIs that crash your host program."
Lol. That's what made his software so great, he kept it non. But I can see the problem when others start wanting to add features via bloat. Two contrasting desires, does he stick with the thing that made his software great, or add any feature someone wants?
Just FYI, I don't think any of the claimed heated threads were captured by the internet archive's sweeps. There were a couple linked to post-fork which were either archived too early, too late, or not at all.
disclaimer - I am one of the github users in the linked thread.
The nature of what different people consider insulting seems to vary greatly. I'd like to judge these supposed insults for myself. Have they been archived?
“We already had history with Jonathan; when we tried to do a few things that were useful to us but not within his design, sometimes even minor things like allowing to use 64x64 icons or having an option to export the whole session as a tar file, we were met with insults.”