Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XBMC Ported To Run On Mir Display Server

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    Its own topic in itself, but BSD are free to port the ripe opensource stack and get some decent acceleration. Just to bash GPL or Linux more efficiently, that is. By the way, why permissive for office suit? Don't wake the StarOffice zombie (or any similar sub-kind).. Why would you plan to close-source the office suit?

    Personally, I am over with it. BSD is for parts and interfaces - if there is need to connect to proprietary at all, GPL is for everything else. That's personal point and its not going anywhere soon. Works for me, if it doesn't for you, exercise your freedom.
    Could you repeat what you said in a more coherent, understandable manner?
    Because it looks as though you had a point to make, but you stopped short of making one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rvalles View Post
      Games generally want OpenGL and will get it through SDL.
      I think that for instance the Steam client was developed using only X.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by verde View Post
        First of all I will just say that you dont have evidence for the opposite.
        So, you seriously want to guess Mir and Wayland's development is the one with the charge of proof?
        Usually, an statistician (since this is nothing formal logic can solve) would assume status quo is the null hypothesis, just FYI.

        Second so you are saying that it would be better if we had one opensource media player, browser, office suite, distribution, de, display server except you approve otherwise in each case. I am sorry that's not open-source. Open source means forking. And of course NO ONE can stop you from creating or forking under gplv3. Don't like it. Don't use it. Don't port your app there. or port it and charge it. I can't see any problem there. Mir's problem.
        There are several things. First, the fragmentation of having several of any thing you named doesn't spread. You don't need to change the code you write because of several distros, browsers (this, kind of, you could actually use browser specific extensions), so they actually affect only themselves. The fragmentation of display servers and toolkits spread all over the place.
        Second, nobody is stopping nobody, so that argument is out of place. Everybody is allowed to want them to stop, as long as they don't actually sabotage them.
        Third, as it spreads, it affects other users. A given provider will either lose the option of talking directly to the window system or will have to choose which to support, if any, or port to both. Since we are acquiring relevancy for closed source providers just now, having two different display solutions will probably mean that they will perceive us as two different markets, or keep porting just to X. If the first happens, this means both markets will have ~50% the market share Linux have. And that's evidently less than they care about.

        Third in every project someone must take decisions. Why should Canonical and Wayland cooperate when there is clearly a direction problem between them. Mir is costing Canonical reputiation and money. Shuttleworth is not insane. Stop being haters and think more before judge anything. The easy solution was supporting Wayland. But was the best? I think Canonical is affraid to say public that Wayland is not viable for them. probably for technical reasons. I strongly believe that Ubuntu Touch wouldn't be in that state today with Wayland. Thats of course mine affair.
        Are you serious? They started spreading FUD, they made up technical problems Wayland doesn't have. As for being afraid of saying anything, just read god damned Shuttleworth's G+, and tell me he doesn't say almost constantly Wayland is crap. Please. Fear. ROFL. If they are not specific, it's because they have nothing.
        Point out where is the "clear direction problem between them", please. Because Canonical folks couldn't point out any real issues on the technical side. If it's just politics, then don't blame the Wayland supporters that talk about politics. I, for one, care less about politics than results, as long as it's open source, and still see no difference in what Mir wants to do and what Wayland allows you to do.
        Guess why does Mir cost Canonical reputation. Could that be that they gave zero tech arguments as of now that justify this break?
        Or maybe pulling desktops on XMir to end users. It has "no benefits" written all over the place. Then, figure why it costs reputation. Not Wayland's fault.

        And last but not least to prove that forking is good i will let you compare today Gnome and Unity. Objectively Unity is more polished, modern, productive, feature rich and as Phoronix proved faster DE. Could Canonical do the same feature changes under Gnome? Of course not! You have an answer why Mir exist now.
        And also, a DE doesn't have the drawbacks of forking a crucial piece of software, and actually does things in a different way, but hey, let's ignore that facts.

        Originally posted by brosis View Post
        The best solution was to fork Wayland and mod it, then report any changes back. In case they are needed at all. That's how stuff is done.
        The best solution was to first share their concerns, and then decide what to do being actually informed.

        Originally posted by intellivision View Post
        Firstly, the BSD example isn't one that you should make in this comparison, there's a lot of competition between the BSD and Linux camps and some of the more colourful conflicts have been about drivers.
        Secondly, there is a reason for AOO and LO, one is permissive and the other is copyleft.
        In fact, in the end most of these conflicts boil down to licensing conflicts i.e. permissive vs copyleft.
        It's hard to make both sides happy.
        So? He's pointing out that what benefits them both is not the competing part. And it is not. If they'd really compete, Linux camp would influence (since there is a bigger share of the X.org board composed by Linux stakeholders) mesa and such to start crippling BSD support consciously, and I don't mean in the ways that are actually sane improvements that hurt them because of their lagging support, but actual non-sense breaks.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
          So? He's pointing out that what benefits them both is not the competing part. And it is not. If they'd really compete, Linux camp would influence (since there is a bigger share of the X.org board composed by Linux stakeholders) mesa and such to start crippling BSD support consciously, and I don't mean in the ways that are actually sane improvements that hurt them because of their lagging support, but actual non-sense breaks.
          Well, if you were looking at it from that perspective, then the Linux camp is already guilty of this through ALSA, SystemD and several GPL only drivers and components.
          Don't get me wrong, a small part of the community loves to co-operate, but there's a large part that loves competition.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by intellivision View Post
            Well, if you were looking at it from that perspective, then the Linux camp is already guilty of this through ALSA, SystemD and several GPL only drivers and components.
            Don't get me wrong, a small part of the community loves to co-operate, but there's a large part that loves competition.
            I don't claim Linux is innocent, either.
            Also, I'm mostly ignorant on which approaches those follow. If the change is actually needed, the approach is really different and the goal as well, then maybe it's not an unnecessary breakage. As for Mir and Wayland and the several toolkits (well, only most of them), the goals seem to be shared, and in the particular case of the display servers, there doesn't seem to be significant difference on the approach, aside from Mir being a server (while Wayland doesn't mandate it to be that way, but gives you the freedom to) and doing server side allocation (same clarification for Wayland as before). I understand the difference between GTK and Qt for being a licensing issue, and at the time GTK started Qt was proprietary even. I, too, see the reason for FLTK, since this does differ in approach, trying to prioritize lightweight, while the rest try to be feature complete (this doesn't mean they are willing to waste resources, but they will prioritize features over frugality).

            As for the competition, being loved and being healthy are two different things. I agree most people on the community love to compete. This doesn't make it any healthier for the ecosystem. In situations it is (different approaches might fit different users), in situations it isn't. I don't call it competition when goals and approach doesn't overlap, and that's why I can generalize competition is not healthy on open source. But having multiple solutions, if the approach and golas are significantly different may be a good thing.

            EDIT: I just realized I completely misread your post. My correct answer follows.
            Maybe it's true. But ALSA, I believe (I'm not really that into subject, so I might be wrong) is there to solve lots of problems. On upstart/systemd, based on the fact I toyed a bit with their configs, make it far easier to make a concurrent startup, so again, is not a breakage "just because". What I meant on the other point was actually hostile breakages, aimed mostly to break compatibility with everyone else. I don't know which the licenses are or if they depend on very specific Linux features, though.
            What I do know is that apps don't usually rely on init systems nor are they aware of them, so it doesn't really break compatibility, and just improving owns system doesn't imply competition, but just looking for new features. With ALSA, I have to admit in some cases they do, in other cases they just use OpenAL which in turn chooses an available backend. ALSA I'm aware is GPL, since it's inside the kernel, and is likely to depend on Linux specific features, since there must be a reason why "Linux" is included on its name.
            Last edited by mrugiero; 07-23-2013, 11:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
              I think that for instance the Steam client was developed using only X.
              Yes, the steam client uses mostly the direct X libraries. But once SDL2 is finalized and released they should be rewriting the client for SDL2 (especially given the fact they hired and are paying the SDL2 writer to continue to write SDL2 instead of giving him something else)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                Yes, the steam client uses mostly the direct X libraries. But once SDL2 is finalized and released they should be rewriting the client for SDL2 (especially given the fact they hired and are paying the SDL2 writer to continue to write SDL2 instead of giving him something else)
                Oh, ok!
                So will there be a Wayland / Mir backend for SDL2 ?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                  Oh, ok!
                  So will there be a Wayland / Mir backend for SDL2 ?
                  Scott Moreau already ported SDL1 to Wayland: https://github.com/soreau/SDL/tree/wayland

                  Presumably SDL2 will also work on Wayland (and Valve will probably also demand a Mir backend as well)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by verde View Post
                    And last but not least to prove that forking is good i will let you compare today Gnome and Unity. Objectively Unity is more polished, modern, productive, feature rich and as Phoronix proved faster DE. Could Canonical do the same feature changes under Gnome? Of course not! You have an answer why Mir exist now.
                    As someone who has used Ubuntu for the past 5 years and Unity for most of that time I must say that after finally switching to Fedora a month ago (sick of Ubuntus focus on Mobile over the Desktop) I have found Gnome 3 a much better design and much more polished DE than Unity. Once you get used to using the super key in Gnome 3 you will wonder how you ever lived without it.
                    Changing between applications is a breeze especially multiple instances of the same application e.g. multiple firefox windows, is very very fast unlike in Unity where it is a royal PITA.

                    Also with Gnome everything works together much more seamlessly which is to be expected as Unity is really just a hack ontop of the Gnome stack.

                    I have considered Windows 7 to have the best workflow of any desktop environment for many years but after using Gnome 3 in Fedora 19 I'm starting to think the Gnome developers are really onto a winner.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by timothyja View Post
                      As someone who has used Ubuntu for the past 5 years and Unity for most of that time I must say that after finally switching to Fedora a month ago (sick of Ubuntus focus on Mobile over the Desktop) I have found Gnome 3 a much better design and much more polished DE than Unity. Once you get used to using the super key in Gnome 3 you will wonder how you ever lived without it.
                      Changing between applications is a breeze especially multiple instances of the same application e.g. multiple firefox windows, is very very fast unlike in Unity where it is a royal PITA.

                      Also with Gnome everything works together much more seamlessly which is to be expected as Unity is really just a hack ontop of the Gnome stack.

                      I have considered Windows 7 to have the best workflow of any desktop environment for many years but after using Gnome 3 in Fedora 19 I'm starting to think the Gnome developers are really onto a winner.
                      I would have said the same thing, but Gnome Shell did not work the way it was supposed to.
                      The global search would lock as soon as you typed a letter for about five seconds, after which it ran normally. Not so bad, except it happened every time you used global search and it would lock up the whole UI for that time. It got to the point where I had to install KDE and after figuring out how to use KRunner, I haven't looked back.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by verde View Post
                        First of all I will just say that you dont have evidence for the opposite.

                        Second so you are saying that it would be better if we had one opensource media player, browser, office suite, distribution, de, display server except you approve otherwise in each case. I am sorry that's not open-source. Open source means forking. And of course NO ONE can stop you from creating or forking under gplv3. Don't like it. Don't use it. Don't port your app there. or port it and charge it. I can't see any problem there. Mir's problem.

                        Third in every project someone must take decisions. Why should Canonical and Wayland cooperate when there is clearly a direction problem between them. Mir is costing Canonical reputiation and money. Shuttleworth is not insane. Stop being haters and think more before judge anything. The easy solution was supporting Wayland. But was the best? I think Canonical is affraid to say public that Wayland is not viable for them. probably for technical reasons. I strongly believe that Ubuntu Touch wouldn't be in that state today with Wayland. Thats of course mine affair.

                        And last but not least to prove that forking is good i will let you compare today Gnome and Unity. Objectively Unity is more polished, modern, productive, feature rich and as Phoronix proved faster DE. Could Canonical do the same feature changes under Gnome? Of course not! You have an answer why Mir exist now.
                        Just shut up. I'm tired to read that bunch of bullshit every time there is a thread on Mir/Wayland.
                        think more before judge anything
                        Read more before write bullshit.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by timothyja View Post
                          Once you get used to using the super key in Gnome 3
                          We are 3 decades past the 80s. GUIs designed in this day that require the use of keyboard to be functional are a failure.

                          Originally posted by timothyja View Post
                          Changing between applications is a breeze especially multiple instances of the same application e.g. multiple firefox windows, is very very fast unlike in Unity where it is a royal PITA.
                          That is interesting to say, as is the primary reason I can't stand Gnome Shell. I find window switching atrocious, counterproductive at least. Having to first switch to activities mode to actually switch windows is equivalent to switching mode in VI in order to edit text. I haven't met a single person that finds the VI switch mode workflow intuitive.

                          Unity productivity is a lot better. The always visible task bar on the left makes window switching easy and fast. The dash is used to extract information from the system. The global menu makes best use of the limited vertical space. Now that is an intuitive and productive interface.
                          Last edited by zoomblab; 07-24-2013, 03:21 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
                            We are 3 decades past the 80s. GUIs designed in this day that require the use of keyboard to be functional are a failure.
                            Well then luckly neither Gnome3 or Unity REQUIRE a keyboard but the are both much faster to use if you do. If you haven't realised the whole idea behind most modern DE's is that its faster to type the name of an app rather than search for it visually then select it with the mouse. Let me guess you copy and paste text using only the mouse too.

                            Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
                            That is interesting to say, as is the primary reason I can't stand Gnome Shell. I find window switching atrocious, counterproductive at least. Having to first switch to activities mode to actually switch windows is equivalent to switching mode in VI in order to edit text. I haven't met a single person that finds the VI switch mode workflow intuitive.
                            Like I said once you get used to using the super key Gnome 3 beats the rest. If you are using the mouse to select Activities I can see why you would hate it. But thats not how its designed as above keyboard is faster and thats the way modern DE's are headed. Once you hit the super key your mouse is usually already in or near the center of the screen so its really easy to switch apps.

                            In Unity you can loose your app in the task bar very easily if you have a few pinned apps and a few open so you need to scroll etc. And if you have more than one window open of the same app you need to right click then selec and click the window you want or left click and you are presented with a selection screen my like the gnome activities screen only worse.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by verde View Post
                              First of all I will just say that you dont have evidence for the opposite.
                              And you can't prove that I don't have an invisible pink unicorn living in my basement. Hey, will you look at that! It's impossible to prove a negative! The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive claim! Who'd have known? Live and learn!

                              This means that since you are making the positive claim that Mir has somehow increased the speed of Wayland development, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this is so.

                              Second so you are saying that it would be better if we had one opensource media player, browser, office suite, distribution, de,
                              No, I'm not saying that. Stop lying about what I'm saying, you dirty liar.

                              display server
                              I'm not saying that, either. I'm saying that everyone should use the same protocol, to ensure interoperability and compatibility accross ALL Linux distributions, both desktop and mobile. Wayland is that protocol, everyone is free to implement their own Wayland compositor and do what they want with that codebase, make it GPL2, GPL3, BSD, MIT, whatever license they want.

                              except you approve otherwise in each case. I am sorry that's not open-source. Open source means forking. And of course NO ONE can stop you from creating or forking under gplv3. Don't like it. Don't use it. Don't port your app there. or port it and charge it. I can't see any problem there. Mir's problem.
                              No, open source means collaboration and sharing of resources. Not forking everything you can and taking advantage of other people's work. Yes forks are allowed, but the purpose is not that everyone makes their own forks of every software. That would defeat the entire point of open source.

                              Third in every project someone must take decisions. Why should Canonical and Wayland cooperate when there is clearly a direction problem between them.
                              What problem? Canonical hasn't even tried to co-operate with Wayland. They have not even tried to collaborate, they have contributed a very few small patches (which were approved IIRC) but apart from that, they haven't even TRIED to work together with the Wayland devs. No, what they did was publicly endorse Wayland, while at the same time, having their spy among the Wayland devs, so they could figure out how to replicate their work, and secretly worked on their own solution that's basically just replicating other people's work but making it in such a way that only Canonical can use it.

                              There is no technical reason for Mir. It's all politics and making Ubuntu separate from other Linux systems.

                              Mir is costing Canonical reputiation and money. Shuttleworth is not insane. Stop being haters and think more before judge anything. The easy solution was supporting Wayland. But was the best? I think Canonical is affraid to say public that Wayland is not viable for them. probably for technical reasons. I strongly believe that Ubuntu Touch wouldn't be in that state today with Wayland. Thats of course mine affair.
                              You say all that, yet you have absolutely no evidence for any of it. You're just saying it because you WANT to believe it. Classic behaviour of a religious fanboy. And you tell others to "think more"? Doctor, cure yourself first...

                              The fact of the matter is, there is no technical reason why Wayland couldn't be used. Wayland is not a display server, it's a protocol. Canonical could still have written their own implementation, they could have used server-side buffer allocations (Wayland allows that), they could have full control of the codebase. They could license it however they wanted. But, see, all the technical reasons Canonical has given have been shown to be lies. The truth is, there is no technical reason. It's all politics.

                              For that matter, it's a dumb move that will surely blow up on Canonical's face. When your business depends 99% on code written by the community, it's not a good idea to piss off the community...

                              And last but not least to prove that forking is good i will let you compare today Gnome and Unity. Objectively Unity is more polished, modern, productive, feature rich and as Phoronix proved faster DE. Could Canonical do the same feature changes under Gnome? Of course not! You have an answer why Mir exist now.
                              That doesn't even make any sense.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                this mir vs wayland stuff is getting on my nerves. is there no productive thing to say?
                                first of all "thank you" to Sam Spilsbury.

                                I'd recommend to post your distrubution you use in your signature and tell again that different aproaches are wasted resources. I am pretty sure that there is more but ONE distribution. So it would seem those haters are not more than people agreeing there has to be one god but in the end forking for behavioural stuff. (Like one Display Server but still several DEs)
                                by the way Martin Luther didnt want to fork the church. And as far as i know he didnt.
                                Besides. Just think what the Linux Ecosystem would be like if Microsoft developers would all start joining linux-distributions. Do you write them hatemails too? ... for not supporting the right OS? F***ing overconfidence, eh?

                                And as said we will see if its that bad. Like unity wasnt loved at the beginning.
                                And as a company you need to tell investors that you have some kind of thing of your own that no one can change without your permission. they HAVE to do it. And stop being pissed off because others dont work the way you want. thats just so illeducated, self-righteous and intolerant! Pay them and then you'll get to judge their work and decisions.

                                and when someone writes it "SEEMS" then because the thing he is gonna say may not be 100% correct and WILL BARE some subjective portion. there really is no need to put him down because he doesnt have the time and maybe technical understanding to read the mailing lists himself. You ready newspapers dont you? But you probably dont read them all, compare and ask victims and witnesses for first hand information (though asking people is hardly the most objective thing in the world...)
                                And it is true, that there hasnt been much traffic on Phoronix over wayland just before Mir emerged.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X