Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Exactly true. There are still plenty of use cases where desktop computers are necessary and touch interfaces are pure torture. And this is not likely to change in the next decade or two. Programming, development, 3d design, graphic design, digital art, music/sound editing, video editing, etc... the list goes on.

    Tablets and smartphones are nice for the things they are used for, but the idea that they could replace all computers is idiotic. Touch interfaces do not scale well beyond about 12", above that they are horrible ergonomically. Touchscreen keyboards will never be as ergonomic as real keyboards, and touch input is less ergonomic than using a mouse, so any work that requires long periods of interacting with an interface will require a) a big enough screen and b) keyboard + mouse.

    One could argue that we might get tablets that are powerful enough that if you attach a monitor, keyboard and mouse they could act as desktop computers. But why would we need tablets for that? What benefit could there be to combine two devices of very different purposes into one? That's the dock thing all over again, the reality is it's much easier to have a separate desktop computer and tablet.

    Comment


    • #47
      Not necessarily

      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      Until it forces mir on everybody and everybody will use it. They have push, wayland doesn't. Most users don't care so most users will use mir since canonical says so. Wayland will be dead on arrival for the simple fact that Ubuntu is the most popular and Canonical will choose mir over wayland.
      It was us Linux knowledgables who put Ubuntu in the spotlight. I wonder how fast it could drop if we stop pushing every new comer and their dog to Ubuntu as the first stop Distro.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
        It was us Linux knowledgables who put Ubuntu in the spotlight. I wonder how fast it could drop if we stop pushing every new comer and their dog to Ubuntu as the first stop Distro.
        I said something on those lines in another thread....i stopped long ago to recommend UBUNTU to any new_user/M$_"refugee" and recommend instead Linux Mint that doesn't use Unity and because other issues.

        It's a much better out-of-the-box experience still very easy to use for new users.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
          Ultimately for new users though I'm going to tend to hook them up with the unofficial openSUSE guide (opensuse has good documentation with things like this) http://opensuse-guide.org/ and an install of openSUSE with KDE and let them have fun with it.
          I could go with that - less based on rapid releases (problem for Fedora and Ubuntu) and has the cohesive YAST utilities. Sounds like a good fit for new users.

          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          It's repeatedly claimed that Michael favors Ubuntu and is biased towards it. Then you claim he's biased against it, to the point of hating it. Can't have it both ways.
          I think you will find that this kind of thing happens a lot on these forums...

          Originally posted by brosis View Post
          The only point where CLA can be positive, and that at very thin balance, is when - its GPL+CLA.
          A company can then for money relicense the software for special project and thus receive income, but the main project is GPL and hence can not be incorporated into proprietary projects directly.
          Red Hat is arguably one of the most profitable software companies in the world and definitely the most profitable free software company, and yet they seem to have never sold a proprietary product. You can sell free software, especially with added services such as cohesive support on top.

          Originally posted by phoen1x View Post
          That's the whole point. Ubuntu is crap, never was good at anything. It's just hyped crap distro, that sucks everything from others and gives nothing in return yet they take all the glory for themselves.
          Since you were quoting me, I would just like to point out that the main purpose of my post was not to say that Ubuntu was necessarily crap, just that it did not have much that differentiates it from the others. It is simply at the very least nothing special.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by dee. View Post
            Exactly true. There are still plenty of use cases where desktop computers are necessary and touch interfaces are pure torture. And this is not likely to change in the next decade or two. Programming, development, 3d design, graphic design, digital art, music/sound editing, video editing, etc... the list goes on.

            Tablets and smartphones are nice for the things they are used for, but the idea that they could replace all computers is idiotic. Touch interfaces do not scale well beyond about 12", above that they are horrible ergonomically. Touchscreen keyboards will never be as ergonomic as real keyboards, and touch input is less ergonomic than using a mouse, so any work that requires long periods of interacting with an interface will require a) a big enough screen and b) keyboard + mouse.

            One could argue that we might get tablets that are powerful enough that if you attach a monitor, keyboard and mouse they could act as desktop computers. But why would we need tablets for that? What benefit could there be to combine two devices of very different purposes into one? That's the dock thing all over again, the reality is it's much easier to have a separate desktop computer and tablet.
            Well said.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by YoungManKlaus View Post
              so, classical NIH at its finest
              The worst thing is, some of those shouting loudest right now are the same people who sided with ATI, against AMD and SuSE, 5 years ago. They did a _huge_ NIH on the RadeonHD driver, with reduced open source goals and they were much less technically advanced. The fglrx driver is still going very strong today because of what they pulled. Yet still people listen to them when they now cry foul few years later, and shout along. It is massively hypocritical.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by libv View Post
                The worst thing is, some of those shouting loudest right now are the same people who sided with ATI, against AMD and SuSE, 5 years ago. They did a _huge_ NIH on the RadeonHD driver, with reduced open source goals and they were much less technically advanced. The fglrx driver is still going very strong today because of what they pulled. Yet still people listen to them when they now cry foul few years later, and shout along. It is massively hypocritical.
                radeonhd itself being a massive NIH of avivo, driven 100% by corporate/business reasons.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by daniels View Post
                  radeonhd itself being a massive NIH of avivo, driven 100% by corporate/business reasons.
                  Really?

                  And this by the guy who said that he had an impossible time to set up basic display stuff as it would hardlock at every corner. My view: the avivo hardware was really quite nice and somewhat resilient. I believe i would've managed quite a lot more out of that display engine (with the massive amount of display insight and knowledge that i had at the time), even without the _extremely_ low level information ATI provided (which ATI hoped would stop us in our tracks).

                  But honestly, partly due to ATI, partly due to AMD, we were just not allowed to talk to others, and were not allowed to contribute to anything else before the big announcement by AMD. We at SuSE were not even told when that announcement was, we kind of guessed and aimed for september, but we were never told until it happened. That was 2-3 months of possibly disjointed development, for very little gain. As the stuff that Avivo did provide was actually pretty minimal.

                  I am not saying that avivo was not important. Avivo was massively important in showing the world that a free driver for ATI was needed. But from an actual driver point of view it only achieved some limited things that could easily be gleaned by reading the 32bit registers directly. There was little that would warrant continued code re-use, and a continuation of the avivo driver would in effect only retain the name.

                  Then... You yourself chose to use the GPL, which is not too acceptable for an open source graphics driver. We at SuSE were not allowed to try and talk to you guys to go and change it. If you had chosen to use MIT however...

                  All in all, the corporate issues with respect to the avivo driver were definitely not on the SuSE side. And they definitely do not provide any justification to side with ATI on a "divide and conquer" tour which reduced the open source story to a figleaf. And _you_ actively contributed to that my friend, all the way down to taking part in hacking a repo of a long dead project, abusing fd.o root, and then not owning up for 3 days with the security of fd.o in limbo.

                  Edit:

                  You and some others NIHed, for no other reason than trumping us at SuSE, and being able to make the most noise. There is simply no other sustainable explanation.
                  Last edited by libv; 03-06-2013, 09:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by libv View Post
                    Really?

                    And this by the guy who said that he had an impossible time to set up basic display stuff as it would hardlock at every corner.
                    Your employer bought you the specs. I reverse-engineered it in my spare time. Bit of a difference there. And I never said impossible, not least because I actually did it. Sometimes remotely, as I couldn't afford to buy a MacBook out of my own pocket - no-one was buying me hardware. Incidentally, until you switched to ATOM, Avivo worked on a bunch of MacBooks whereas RadeonHD didn't at all. I guess that's just dumb register bashing that any idiot could do, though.

                    (Also, yes, it did deadlock whilst busmastering if you set some parameters up incorrectly. Which is pretty easy to do when you have to guess what the register's actually for. It's much easier with specs and already-working code, but you already know that.)

                    Originally posted by libv View Post
                    Then... You yourself chose to use the GPL, which is not too acceptable for an open source graphics driver. We at SuSE were not allowed to try and talk to you guys to go and change it. If you had chosen to use MIT however...
                    We said we'd happily relicense it if people wanted it to be relicensed. Whatever your reasons may be, you never asked, so you don't get to complain about it. I'm also not really sure what your specific problem was with the GPL, but that's neither here nor there: it could easily have been MIT.

                    Originally posted by libv View Post
                    You and some others NIHed, for no other reason than trumping us at SuSE, and being able to make the most noise. There is simply no other sustainable explanation.
                    We developed in the open, with our code public, while you worked in secret and didn't tell anyone what you were doing. And we started first. Even by your standards of bending reality to match your wounded ego, this is nonsensical.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by daniels View Post
                      Your employer bought you the specs. I reverse-engineered it in my spare time. Bit of a difference there. And I never said impossible, not least because I actually did it. Sometimes remotely, as I couldn't afford to buy a MacBook out of my own pocket - no-one was buying me hardware. Incidentally, until you switched to ATOM, Avivo worked on a bunch of MacBooks whereas RadeonHD didn't at all. I guess that's just dumb register bashing that any idiot could do, though.

                      (Also, yes, it did deadlock whilst busmastering if you set some parameters up incorrectly. Which is pretty easy to do when you have to guess what the register's actually for. It's much easier with specs and already-working code, but you already know that.)
                      Did you read the proposal we at SuSE sent to AMD? We at SuSE made the open specs happen, in as far as ATI wanted to play along (not much, and they stopped when radeonhd died, and only the AMD GPGPU people continued). We also only took those specs when they were bound to become free, we very strictly made sure that we never got tainted. Sadly though, ATI did not keep its side of the bargain, and some later rv6xx and r7xx low level register stuff never got freed.

                      Originally posted by daniels View Post
                      We said we'd happily relicense it if people wanted it to be relicensed. Whatever your reasons may be, you never asked, so you don't get to complain about it. I'm also not really sure what your specific problem was with the GPL, but that's neither here nor there: it could easily have been MIT.


                      We developed in the open, with our code public, while you worked in secret and didn't tell anyone what you were doing. And we started first. Even by your standards of bending reality to match your wounded ego, this is nonsensical.
                      That one is on ATI/AMD.

                      We actually got badly rapped when a KDE guy, 2 doors down from us, posted some rumours about the something upcoming at AMD/ATI. Turns out, that this guy just saw a huge pile of graphics cards in the room with the X geeks and thought nothing of it. The "rumour" was instead spread by someone from AMD at Akademy 2007. This was how this thing worked, and we at SuSE already had achieved loads with respect to openness, we just had to keep things under wraps until AMD could make their big noise (and we were never even told when to expect this).

                      All of the above explains why we couldn't use the avivo shell.

                      It does not however warrant a full and very aggressive fork and NIH, or all the shitthrowing contests afterwards. This NIH was about as damaging to the free ATI/AMD driver as AMDs lack of control over ATI and the financial crisis was.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X