"As I mentioned in the videocast, the simple reality is that we have found that neither X nor Wayland is ideal for the convergence story we are working on with Ubuntu. This is a story that needs a really thin display server that is not just efficient and capable of delivering the Ubuntu experience on desktops, but also on more constrained devices such as phones, tablets and potentially other form factors too.
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
Clearly X is not serving these needs today as well as we need it to, and while Wayland is an option for the future, it is not the only option.
Trust me when I say that Canonical would rather not have to focus on additional engineering to deliver our vision, but what we also don't want to do is build around another solution that ultimately won't deliver what we need for this wider convergence vision. If we did that, we would end up in a similar place as we are now, depending on technology that weighs us down in functionality, performance and maintenance costs."
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/02/c...display-server Check out the comments section; he makes several posts.
I don't doubt that they could come up with something for the mobile side. After all you have Android and webOS and all the other solutions that have made it easy for vendors to plug their drivers in. I suppose Canonical could do something similar, or reuse some of that code, or at least reuse the concept. But converting that to the desktop = disaster. No doubt about it.
This "convergence story" which has become all the rage (Unity, Metro, GNOME Shell) is just dumb. There's a difference between providing seamless integration between a variety of devices and forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Seems like Canonical can't find anything better to do than developing their own display server (as if Wayland isn't enough).
OK, he's just talking bafflegab, like a typical boring PR whore. He gives no particular technical reasons against Wayland, only vague words about "maintenance, performance and functionality" which "weighs in" as if Canonical was a major upstream contributor to drivers, toolkits or to the Linux kernel, it is not, never was.
Originally Posted by johnc
Last edited by mark45; 02-04-2013 at 02:45 PM.
why not wait till there's something to talk about
The one comment no one has quoted:
"Yikes, I guess the few minutes of my weekly Q&A hit the news."
I took the time to read the comments because i thought someone who actually knew anything might have said something worth reading. Turns out no.
Fact is, Jono merely mentioned that X wasn't good enough (news to nobody) and that they were evaluating different options (they'd be stupid not to). Nothing terribly new in fact, and certainly nothing worth getting hot and bothered. So why not wait till there's some actual information before having an opinion.
Keep in mind one thing however: Canonical employ intelligent and capable engineers. One expects that whatever decision they take, they'll have some fairly good reasons for it.
( anticipating moans about them dropping Gnome shell for Unity, answer this question honestly - knowing their goal was to build the Unity experience, do you honestly think they could have done it while also aligning development with Gnome shell? (whether you like Unity or not is irrelevant) )
"I think you might be jumping the gun a little.
We haven't even announced our future plans for display management in Ubuntu, let alone (1) how much engineering is required to maintain our chosen solution (2) the work involved and the cadence in which we deliver it, and (3) the automated and manual testing required to maintain high quality.
I think these are all important discussions to have, but lets have them when more details are available rather then speculating around a minute of discussion from my weekly Q&A. I am working with our engineers to get this discussion going as quickly as we can, and I expect it can kick off in the next few weeks."
They haven't even begun to discuss this with the devs yet. Everyone is jumping the gun, lol.
Wayland = good
Anything not wayland = bad (for the rest of human existence)
Is this correct?
People who look at the evidence and make thier own educated opinion good.
Originally Posted by boast
People who jump to conclusions and generalize without evidence or intelligent thought, bad.
Please roast the Bacon.
Someone really needs to remove this Jono Bacon as a "community manager" and I would say remove him completely and sap his influencing power by relegating him to a troll.
This is -EXACTLY- what Linux is suffering from - and I've said this over and over - the MASSIVE hubris coinciding with the "not invented here" syndrome.
If "Jono Bacon" was to actually LOOK and LISTEN before he opens his mouth, he will realize that whatever "THEY INVENT" in lieu of Wayland will MIMIC Wayland probably 90-95%, just as Wayland mimics X a whole lot in any way that is beneficial, at least architecturally if not code wise.
This arrogant behavior on behalf of hot heads like this Bacon or anyone like him MUST end, or Linux on the desktop will never see the light of day.
Mark Shuttleworth - if you are reading, or anyone who knows Mark - can you please REIGN in this assface Bacon? THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
I'll take a stab at this -
Originally Posted by boast
Anything not Wayland = Anything not UNIX
Is anything not UNIX bad? Not necessarily, but then why does everyone keep reinventing it?
My point is - even if whomever his "Anything not wayland" highness is puts something together, it's going to end up looking a lot like Wayland.....
Jono Bacon is just the community manager, so he is basically the messenger.
Originally Posted by MartinN
Don't shoot the messenger.
He isn't the guy who decided that they should develop this software.