Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

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

  • Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

    Phoronix: Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

    Kristian Høgsberg has put out the first test releases of the forthcoming Wayland 1.3 release and reference Weston compositor...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ2NzA

  • #2
    It's a bugfix release and since the features are internal or weston-related, it doesn't deserve a new point release.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Honton View Post
      The features are highly Gnome related, so it does need a release. Gnome 3.10 is here in a few days and Fedora needs to release Wayland supported packages soon. So sure this is needed when the primary Wayland desktop and primary Wayland distribution ask for it.
      Which is what I'm saying, it should be like 1.2.2 instead of 1.3.
      1.2.1 included some internal features and lots of bugfixes, like this release.

      But it doesn't really matter, I'm just picky I guess.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        They need to look like they're making progress. They themselves realized how serious and fast Canonical is about the development of Mir so they have to look like they're keeping up.
        Does anyone bite your pathetic trolling attempts anymore?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mark45 View Post
          Which is what I'm saying, it should be like 1.2.2 instead of 1.3.
          1.2.1 included some internal features and lots of bugfixes, like this release.
          From the announcements, it is pretty clear why they are using 1.3 vs. 1.2.3 (emphasis added):

          1.2.1:
          This release is mainly bug fixes and documentation tweaks, but a lotof them. We also have the touch support for toytoolkit and other clients. This is probably more of a feature, but it barely affects existing code paths or change weston internal API, so it's a safe addition.
          1.3:
          I believe I picked up most recent patches and fixes recently on the list. In particular, I merged Rob and Neils patch to send out events to all listeners for wl_pointer, wl_keyboard and wl_touch from a client. This patch enables clutter-gtk and webkitgtk, but touches core event delivery code paths, so look for regressions there.
          So, as with many projects, only non-disruptive changes are allowed in x.x.x releases. If the change has a significant potential for regressions or changes to users, it is kept for x.x releases.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            They need to look like they're making progress. They themselves realized how serious and fast Canonical is about the development of Mir so they have to look like they're keeping up.
            I'll bite. It doesn't matter how fast Canonical moves with Mir or how slow Wayland progresses. Despite your boundless hope that the world will unite on Mir, this is not going to happen.

            The way that Canonical introduced Mir, with a big tada and a lot of technical falsehoods about Wayland, stepped on a lot of toes. That Mir was conceived in total darkness as a secret skunkworks project, kept under wraps for 9 months, also didn't endear any outsider to Mir.

            Mir is asymmetrically licensed under the GPLv3 + CLA. This means that no-one but Canonical can license a Mir implementation under less free conditions. For mobile, with the specific requirements of that industry in place, Mir under the GPLv3 is useless to any distributor but Canonical. Wayland in contrast is licensed under MIT and this means everybody is free to use it as free software or to close up the code. This is completely symmetrical. No need to beg ($$) Canonical for a license exception. This alone reduces the chance of third party Mir uptake dramatically.

            You may think that Canonical is big enough to bend the entire Linux community to their converged vision and on Canonical's terms, but they are not. They are a relatively small company, that has captured a smidge of the non-technical minded computing market (in comparison to the whole non-technical computing market). A smidge that is not really paying the bills to boot.

            What you think is a titanic battle of wills between mighty Canonical and the rest of the puny Linux developers, is in fact a technical rift between tiny Ubuntu and the rest of the massive Linux ecosphere. Ubuntu is breaking off of the larger Linux ice shelf. So you will have a whole family of diverse Operating Systems, powered by Linux, GNU, Wayland and systemd and there will be Ubuntu, powered by Linux, GNU, Mir and upstart. Where do you think the synergies will happen?

            Ubuntu is becoming its own thing. If that is bad or good, I'll leave to interested stakeholders. I no longer have any skin in that game. It will probably mean that Ubuntu will keep diverging from what is traditionally understood as a Linux distribution. Since upstream support for Ubuntu is becoming strained, I wouldn't be surprised if Canonical opts to write its own development environment, unique to Ubuntu. This will mean yet another FOSS platform, next to Linux, *BSD, Haiku, ReactOS, etc. but if running that makes you happy, it makes me happy that you have found your thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
              Mir is asymmetrically licensed under the GPLv3 + CLA. This means that no-one but Canonical can license a Mir implementation under less free conditions.

              Wait, wait, wait.... are you telling me that the opensource community is mad that a piece of OSS can't just be forked and released under a less free license? Being able to just show up, take someone else's hard work, fork it and license it under a less free title and develop it outside of the GPL is now a GOOD THING in the open source community? So what Oracle does is a good thing now?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
                I'll bite. It doesn't matter how fast Canonical moves with Mir or how slow Wayland progresses. Despite your boundless hope that the world will unite on Mir, this is not going to happen.

                The way that Canonical introduced Mir, with a big tada and a lot of technical falsehoods about Wayland, stepped on a lot of toes. That Mir was conceived in total darkness as a secret skunkworks project, kept under wraps for 9 months, also didn't endear any outsider to Mir.

                Mir is asymmetrically licensed under the GPLv3 + CLA. This means that no-one but Canonical can license a Mir implementation under less free conditions. For mobile, with the specific requirements of that industry in place, Mir under the GPLv3 is useless to any distributor but Canonical. Wayland in contrast is licensed under MIT and this means everybody is free to use it as free software or to close up the code. This is completely symmetrical. No need to beg ($$) Canonical for a license exception. This alone reduces the chance of third party Mir uptake dramatically.
                The license is a red herring. It doesn't really matter that much, GPLv3 license is fine, and if Canonical wants to make money with a dual-licensing scheme, that's their right and entirely acceptable.

                What matters more is that Mir is developed in such a way that no other DE can even consider it feasible to support it. Mir is being developed for Unity only, it's tailored for Canonical's needs and not anyone else's, Canonical makes no promises to maintain any kind of compatibility with any alternative implementations, or even compatibility within their own releases - they've explicitly stated that they will not maintain a stable server-side API. This is not a software that is suitable for various needs and use cases. Especially, when there is already Wayland, which is made to run everywhere and suit everyone's needs. So it really makes no sense for anyone other than Canonical to support Mir. There's no benefit in it to anyone else.

                When Intel starts selling their Tizen-based ultrabooks, they're going to increase the Linux marketshare more than Ubuntu ever did. Intel has enough power and resources to bring Linux to the reach of average consumers, in regular retail stores, right next to win8 laptops. People can compare and contrast, see how much better Tizen runs (with Wayland) when compared to win8.

                So Canonical is really making a bad mistake with Mir. They're fighting a battle they have no chance of winning, and it will end badly for them unless they repent. I hope it doesn't come to that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Honton View Post
                  He said the asymmetry is unfair, that's it. The right level of freedom or restrictions may vary for different parts of the software stack, but asymmetry is always wrong.

                  Wayland is symmetric, MIR is asymmetric. MIR is always the wrong choice for every one but Canonical.
                  I wasn't aware GPL was ever unfair. Everyone is free to use any GPL code as free GPL code. Multi-developer licensed GPL can have issues. Ask VLC how they had to rewrite perfectly good code due to a number of developers not responding or simply refusing change the license on their code when the main project decided too (I seem to remember reading ~30% of VLC code had thier devs refuse to change license and had to have the code rewritten, but I don't remember of that's true or just my bad memory) . Pretty shitty situation that is smart to avoided by CLA, that way one asshole with an axe to grind can't kill/damage an entire project.

                  link, but the whole story isn't found in this one link: http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl-libvlc.html
                  Last edited by dh04000; 09-23-2013, 11:23 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Honton View Post
                    Even if MIR was any good, do you really believe the rest of the industry would sign yet another CLA just to be a part of MIR?
                    Sure. People sign CLA's to contribute to lots of things. CLA's don't really matter all that much.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dee. View Post
                      The license is a red herring. It doesn't really matter that much, GPLv3 license is fine, and if Canonical wants to make money with a dual-licensing scheme, that's their right and entirely acceptable.

                      What matters more is that Mir is developed in such a way that no other DE can even consider it feasible to support it. Mir is being developed for Unity only, it's tailored for Canonical's needs and not anyone else's, Canonical makes no promises to maintain any kind of compatibility with any alternative implementations, or even compatibility within their own releases - they've explicitly stated that they will not maintain a stable server-side API. This is not a software that is suitable for various needs and use cases. Especially, when there is already Wayland, which is made to run everywhere and suit everyone's needs. So it really makes no sense for anyone other than Canonical to support Mir. There's no benefit in it to anyone else.

                      When Intel starts selling their Tizen-based ultrabooks, they're going to increase the Linux marketshare more than Ubuntu ever did. Intel has enough power and resources to bring Linux to the reach of average consumers, in regular retail stores, right next to win8 laptops. People can compare and contrast, see how much better Tizen runs (with Wayland) when compared to win8.

                      So Canonical is really making a bad mistake with Mir. They're fighting a battle they have no chance of winning, and it will end badly for them unless they repent. I hope it doesn't come to that.
                      What makes you think that Tizen was conceived for "the benefit of everybody else"?

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen

                      The operating system itself consists of many open source components. A number of components internally developed by Samsung (e.g. boot animation, calendar, task manager, music player applications) are however released under the Flora License which is most likely incompatible with requirements of the Open Source Initiative. Therefore it is not known whether the native application framework and its graphical components can be legally utilized for Free and Open Source Software such as GPL applications.
                      Let me remind you that behing Tizen there is not only Intel but really Samsung. A company obvioulsy interested in the smarthphone and tablet market dominance. Their bussines is hardware, not advertisement , so they are not interested in spreding adware (Android) like Google does. Their dream, like any other company, is to have total control over the software too, so they are backing up software that eventually will fit their needs . So these are not "Tizen-based intel ultrabooks for the community ", there are Samsung ultrabooks with corporate profits in mind. Sadly, there is an obvious conflict of interests with Canonical who is on their way.

                      At the end, Samsung and Intel can just trash it if their strategies change, just like HP did, jut like Nkia did. Oh! and just like Intel itself did with Tizen ancestors. That's the real world deal.

                      The whole point of GPL-like licences is not just to "modify the source code for the benefit of anybody else". You are entiled to grab any open source code and modify it for your own personal interests. The license requieres you to publish the source code along with the binaries if you happen to publish your binaries for whatever reason you do it. There is no benefit for the comunity if there is no individual benefit.

                      You can fork MIR or Wayland , IF you want for whatever reason you can imagine. There are no arbitrary moral clausules nor obligations in any opensource license.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                        What makes you think that Tizen was conceived for "the benefit of everybody else"?
                        Tizen is a collaborative project and a registered trademark of The Linux Foundation.

                        What makes you think that "the beneficit of everbody else" is not part of its DNA ?

                        Let me remind you that behing Tizen there is not only Intel but really Samsung. A company obvioulsy interested in the smarthphone and tablet market dominance. Their bussines is hardware, not advertisement , so they are not interested in spreding adware (Android) like Google does. Their dream, like any other company, is to have total control over the software too, so they are backing up software that eventually will fit their needs . So these are not "Tizen-based intel ultrabooks for the community ", there are Samsung ultrabooks with corporate profits in mind. Sadly, there is an obvious conflict of interests with Canonical who is on their way.

                        At the end, Samsung and Intel can just trash it if their strategies change, just like HP did, jut like Nkia did. Oh! and just like Intel itself did with Tizen ancestors. That's the real world deal.

                        The whole point of GPL-like licences is not just to "modify the source code for the benefit of anybody else". You are entiled to grab any open source code and modify it for your own personal interests. The license requieres you to publish the source code along with the binaries if you happen to publish your binaries for whatever reason you do it. There is no benefit for the community if there is no individual benefit.

                        You can fork MIR or Wayland , IF you want for whatever reason you can imagine. There are no arbitrary moral clausules nor obligations in any opensource license.
                        Yes, the Tizen Association is led by a Board of Directors from Samsung, Intel. But also from Huawei, Fujitsu, NEC, Panasonic, KT, Sprint, SK Telecom, Orange, NTT Docomo, Vodafone,... Don't you think the real "real world deal" is there with many companies working together on a collaborative project ?

                        Moreover Tizen is an operating system... whereas Mir/Wayland are only display servers.
                        Since nobody expects that big players will suddenly publish every bit of their source code, what paramounts here is that the component we are talking about, Wayland protocol implementation, remains published under a GPL-compatible license and can be modified for anybody personal interests.

                        And if The Linux Foundation can deal with it, IMHO we also can.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                          I wasn't aware GPL was ever unfair.
                          Canonical can relicense your code under any license they want. Nobody else can do this. Then you have to trust a company. I'd rather not. Simple said: maybe current management is fine, but what if they're taken over? E.g. MySQL->Sun->Oracle. FSF at least guarantees to only ever change it to a similar free software license and still I don't like it that they have special powers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't like Canonical's Mir project, and I was already soured to Ubuntu when Canonical introduced adware into it, so I too support the idea of an OS to replace Ubuntu as the primary entry point for new users into free software. However, I get the impression that Tizen is actually worse for software freedom than Ubuntu is. My impression comes from not seeing very much activity around Tizen outside Intel and Samsung, and lack of trust in Intel's (and, to a less degree, Samsung's) motives. Although Intel has come far in their support of open source software, I still believe that their track record of working to increase vendor lock-in and reduce user freedom outweighs their more recent efforts.

                            However, I do not follow Tizen development and openly admit that my impressions are based on very poor information. If anyone can reasonably argue that I am wrong about Tizen, I'll happily admit my mistake.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Serge View Post
                              However, I get the impression that Tizen is actually worse for software freedom than Ubuntu is.
                              Well it's getting better. Here's a document worth reading about the subject.

                              Originally posted by Serge View Post
                              Although Intel has come far in their support of open source software...
                              They really have... Guess who is the most active developer behind the de facto bluetoot stack, Bluez, on Linux? Intel. Guess who is the primary developer behind Wayland/Weston? Intel. How about oFono (used by Sailfish, Ubuntu Touch, MeeGo, Tizen (next version I think))? Intel. How about Mesa? Intel. ConnMan, the network stack used by Sailfish, Ubuntu Touch, Tizen...? Intel... and so on and so forth. They are also the second most active company in Linux developement. Red Hat is the only company to surpass them in contributions to the GNU/Linux stack overall and no one else comes even close.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X