Originally posted by ChrisXY
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Compiz Will Not Be Ported To Wayland
Collapse
X
-
Good. Just that - good. Go Weston, go Openbox. A project of critical system component should be allowed to struggle only for a short period of time. Too long - it should die, as either the team is not up to the task or it needs to be re-written from the ground up.
On a side note - overcomplicating a critical software layer just for the sake of visual effects should be punishable or made possible only via separate modules.
As for the fragmentation. While you may disagree with this being a problem, but the point about wasting resources is still valid and there's nothing you can say to undermine that. Let's be honest. Vast majority of OSS projects are just for the sake of fun and their authors don't have think about the end results, nor the place of the project in Linux desktop let alone end-user.
Canonical:
Let's look at it from a different direction. How do they distribute their efforts?
Upstream - near 0%
In-house projects that serve no one but Canonical - a lot
Comment
-
Originally posted by torturedutopian View PostCanonical could have made a difference by supporting massively GNOME for instance. They chose to make their own shell and shopping lenses instead of fixing essential existing stuff (to be fair, it's not that black or white, they also do)
Now, looking back at things, it would probably have been better if they could have worked together, but working together has to come from two sides, and it seems like right now the GNOME (Shell) people are still not wanting to actively work together with others (or at least, I don't see any other reason why the Linux Mint people would want to fork mutter).
BTW: forks also happen in closed source software, usually when 2 partners disagree on the future of a project. Microsoft Windows NT & IBM OS/2 were forks of the same project, and so are Sybase's & Microsoft's SQL database servers (actually MS SQL Server forked from Sybase, itself a fork of the Ingres database which was also forked into several other commercial databases like Illustra/Informix and HP NonStop SQL). Illustrating that this is not only a problem with open source projects...
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostIt's kinda the same on Windows also. There are 400 million different applications that all do the same thing.
Granted there is usually one that is a cut above the rest... but a lot of times those are coming from a corporation.
BTW: Maya was mentioned here somewhere as an example of closed source software being better, but Maya actually depends on several open source projects like Python, Qt, etc., and where they don't use open source, like in l10n of text strings, their own solution is inferior to the common open source solutions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JanC View PostThe problem is, of course, that GNOME upstream (whatever or whomever that might be; some people suggest it's actually just Red Hat ) did not agree with Canonical's vision on how Ubuntu/GNOME should work. So Canonical had 2 choices: following GNOME blindly (and listening to everybody complaining that they didn't contribute enough to GNOME while knowing that GNOME would likely turn down the patches they wanted included...) or implement their own desktop shell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Awesomeness View PostOr they could've modified GNOME Shell by writing extensions
Originally posted by Awesomeness View Postor they could've chosen another existing DE like Plasma Desktop (for which Canonical wrote applets anyway to implement Ayatana things).
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostI could be wrong but I was under the impression that initially the extension-related stuff was fairly limited. It wasn't until a few releases in that Gnome shell developers decided to allow people to make more significant changes to the function and appearance of the shell.
Comment
Comment