Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The First Benchmarks Of Unity On XMir: There's A Performance Hit

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by seb24 View Post
    Don't feed the troll please. Better to stay with fact and leave @dee doing idiot FUD alone.
    Don't use words whose meaning you don't understand please. Especially since you're unable to refute anything I've said. Why is Mir necessary? What benefit does it provide to Linux? You can't answer these questions, because there is no benefit. Everything was going great with Wayland, then Canonical decided to come out with Mir and create all this confusion and hassle. And now you parrot their rhetoric on the forums, willingly ignoring all facts in order to stay true to the shuttleworthian dogma...

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Teho View Post
      The difference is that in case of Mir Canonical has rights to the code that others don't while everyone has the same rights to Wayland source code.
      So the difference is that, with Mir, only one company could possibly make a proprietary version, whilst with Wayland, every company can make a proprietary version. Neither solution is optimal for open source, but I'm not seeing why the latter would be better.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Teho View Post
        The quote was talking exactly about that clause. In practise it doesn't prevent proprietary only licensing.
        Not exactly. You link speak about the case of :
        - The CLA don't permit to re-licence the code in proprietary licence. The obligation of publish in the original licence is still here.
        - And in this case the guy explain that it is possible to relicence in BSD licence and after that in Proprietary licence because the BSD licence permit it.
        But in realty I think is wrong. Because if the BSD licence give you this possibility, you still have the obligation to respect the CLA... So you can't.

        To resume they are wrong. The owner (for example Canonical) have the obligation to respect the CLA. And republish the code in the original licence + another licence.

        Comment


        • #44
          Funny seeing all the Ewwwbuntu retards praising development speed as the ultimate metric of measuring the quality of a project.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by timothyja View Post
            As already mentioned Mir basically just rips off Waylands design (which is where alot of the time has been spent), and XMir is just the XWayland code ported to Mir.
            This.

            What are we talking about here anyway?

            This benchmark runs XMir which is basically the work of the Wayland people (XWayland)
            https://twitter.com/hoegsberg/status/308706022447542272
            (In particular the linked article by a Canonical employee)
            Last edited by entropy; 06-28-2013, 11:21 AM.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by seb24 View Post
              As I understand no (in the case of the Canonical CLA) :

              "As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
              license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
              licenses which We are using for the Material on the
              Submission Date."

              I understand that can do some sub-licence but always licence in the original licence too.
              Yes thats the important bit alright. Read it again and think about it for a minute. Your contribution will be available under the GPL so for example if you contribute to version 1 of Mir your contribution WILL be licenced under the GPL for version 1 of Mir.
              However the key part is "We agree to ALSO license the Contribution" they DO NOT say it will ONLY be licensed under that licence. So they can create any number of forks under different licences and still conform to their agreement because your contribution is licenced under the GPL in version 1. They have every right to licence Version 2 under a closed licence only.

              If you are interested the highest profile case I can think of this type of thing happening is with Open Office (originally under GPL). Sun used to have a similair agreement for Open Office contributions. Sun changed the licence so that it could licence the code to IBM under a closed source arrangement and when Oracle took over this is how they were able to relicence it to an apache licence and donate it to the apache project. Anyway thats why LibreOffice is GPL and OpenOffice is now Apache.
              Last edited by timothyja; 06-28-2013, 11:34 AM.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                So in order to make sure they get it right we will probably have Wayland ready somewhere around 2050. Or 2100 to get it REAALLY right.
                They got it right. already

                That's why the Mir people simply copied all of it


                One word: freedom. Because they can. They can fork the whole kernel and create their own modified version and then create the coolest marketing campaign on Earth and wipe the floor with all the other distros.
                Google already did that, and were successful with their Linux-but-not-Linux operating system.

                And just like this Mir stuff, it had essentially zero impact on desktop Linux. Private walled gardens are like that, they don't mix with the free software ecosystem.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                  So in order to make sure they get it right we will probably have Wayland ready somewhere around 2050. Or 2100 to get it REAALLY right.
                  No, Fedora 20 will run Wayland. 21 will have it on by default. Your willing ignorance and reality distortion is stunning. But I guess that's necessary to be admitted to the shuttleworthian cult...

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by timothyja View Post
                    Yes thats the important bit alright. Read it again and think about it for a minute. Your contribution will always be available under the GPL so for example if you contribute to version 1 of Mir your contribution WILL be licenced under the GPL for version 1 of Mir.
                    However the key part is "We agree to also license the Contribution" they DO NOT say it will ONLY be licensed under that licence. So they can create any number of forks under different licences and still conform to their agreement because your contribution is licenced under the GPL in version 1. They have every right to licence Version 2 under a closed licence only.
                    No "version" history here.
                    If your "contribution" is in the Version 2 they have the obligation to publish it in the original licence + other sub-licence.

                    Originally posted by timothyja View Post
                    If you are interested the highest profile case I can think of this type of thing happening is with Open Office (originally under GPL). Sun used to have a similair agreement for Open Office contributions. Sun changed the licence so that it could licence the code to IBM under a closed source arrangement and when Oracle took over this is how they were able to relicence it to an apache licence and donate it to the apache project. Anyway thats why LibreOffice is GPL and OpenOffice is now Apache.
                    You speak about other type of CLA. Each one is different. And in this case Libre Office still have the right of the GPL licence. But is another history.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by dee. View Post
                      No, Fedora 20 will run Wayland. 21 will have it on by default. Your willing ignorance and reality distortion is stunning. But I guess that's necessary to be admitted to the shuttleworthian cult...
                      yeah he lives in an alternate universe or something, i guess mark religion requires you separate yourself from any form of reason or reality that isn't sanctioned by mark

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X