No announcement yet.

LightDM Caught Off-Guard By Mir, Plans For Wayland

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by aavci View Post
    Then, how are you supposed to type in your password, select a session etc? Do you have an alternative design?
    Can't Wayland ask me these things directly and on its own?


    • #12
      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      Can't Wayland ask me these things directly and on its own?
      Wouldn't that equate to a reference login manager?


      • #13
        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        Can't Wayland ask me these things directly and on its own?
        Even the kernel could, but should it?

        There are lots of stuff done in the display manager. If we cram all these into wayland, wouldn't that make it another X? Even a worse one?

        And remember wayland is the name of the protocol. You would still need to implement it, probably in the form of a display manager.


        • #14
          related posts on LightDM mailing list:

          By David Edmundson

          By Robert Ancell (reply from the canonical guy)


          • #15
            Ok so from what I gather it looks something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this):

            + Wayland system compositor 
            +--- Splash screen 
            +--- Display manager
            +--+ Wayland compositor
               +--- XWayland
            Wayland is the standard that defines how these parts interact. The implementation of these different parts can vary. The system compositor can be the default reference implementation or something else. The display manager can be LightDM, GDM, KDM or something else. The Wayland compositor can be Weston or something else.

            The system compositor is at the bottom of the stack, and basically doesn't do any actual compositing per se, it just switches inputs between splash screen, display manager and the actual compositor. The actual compositor (Weston or equivalent) works as the window manager, on top of which all the applications run.

            So the display manager is still needed to show the login screen, ask for username/password, and choose the session type. Then it basically just gets out of way and the actual compositor takes over.


            • #16
              Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Post
              related posts on LightDM mailing list:
              From those posts...

              "More warning on this would have been nice"

              Agreed. I would have loved to make this public ages ago but was not able to.
              Says it all, really. Ubuntu depends on all of these other people to build the software they ship, but actually cooperating with those people comes second to Canonical's desire for secrecy.


              • #17
                Originally posted by talvik View Post
                LightDM is under the CLA. Canonical probably won't use his lib.

                That's new. Check


                • #18
                  If I were a voluntary contributor to an Ubuntu project, I'd be jumping ship right about now.

                  The ability to develop his own libraries suggests a fair amount of intelligence.

                  Sticking by Canonical suggests a lack of intelligence.

                  These two don't seem to reconcile with each other, is it like when a battered spouse sticks by an abusive partner seemingly against common sense?


                  • #19
                    If I understand it correct? The guy has in the last half a year written a qt library for lightdm (a Canonical project) to use with kde. He do this because he expect Canonical to develop the wayland backend to lightdm.
                    Instead Canonical switch to MIR and UNITY next. The result canonical use his qt library for Unity next but do not support the wayland port. So he gave Canonical a half a year work with the qt support but can as it's now not use it himself? At least if he don't also do the wayland port?


                    • #20

                      Of course he can use it himself. If it's under GPL, he just has to fork his own project, so that it stays under GPL. A GPL-licensed software cannot be fully closed - if Canonical owns the copyright to it, they can only "close" it so that the next version they release would be proprietary, but the last GPL-released version would still be under GPL and anyone can fork or use it under GPL.

                      The GPL is designed specifically to prevent the code being closed. So anyone can use it as long as they keep it under GPL - no matter who "owns" the code.