Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 117

Thread: Upstream X/Wayland Developers Bash Canonical, Mir

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,369

    Default Upstream X/Wayland Developers Bash Canonical, Mir

    Phoronix: Upstream X/Wayland Developers Bash Canonical, Mir

    Canonical's decision to develop Mir, their own display server not derived from X11 or Wayland, hit many as a big surprise today. Canonical previously committed to Wayland in a future Ubuntu release but now it turns out that for months they have secretly been rolling their own solution behind closed doors...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    321

    Default

    What do you think about this:

    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec#Mir_...Source_Drivers

    Right now, Mir does not run on desktop hardware that requires closed source drivers. However, we are in contact with GPU vendors and are working closely together with them to support Mir and to distill a reusable and unified EGL-centric driver model that further eases display server development in general and keeps cross-platform use-cases in mind.
    If it's true, and these drivers will be at least Wayland compatible, it can still benefit everyone. But if these going to be Mir only - Ubuntu will go the slippery road of Android, creating a sick drivers competition and Ubuntu only hardware.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    766

    Default

    The main point is Canonical didn't complain at all about Wayland, didn't contribute, didn't ask questions, didn't propose solutions, didn't object to anything, just sat there quiet and then bang - they say Wayland sucks and they "have" to use their own solution. Anyone non-brain damaged knows it's not about Wayland, it's about the NIH syndrome, and more importantly, the fact that Canonical can't control it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    The main point is Canonical didn't complain at all about Wayland, didn't contribute, didn't ask questions, didn't propose solutions, didn't object to anything, just sat there quiet and then bang - they say Wayland sucks and they "have" to use their own solution. Anyone non-brain damaged knows it's not about Wayland, it's about the NIH syndrome, and more importantly, the fact Canonical can't control it.
    It seemed like they were all gung-ho about Wayland but then a few weeks back it came out that they were working on their own scheme. Seemed very surprising.

    My gut is that they needed something that worked on phones / tablets now with a lot of SoC driver support so they wanted to take Android SF in and see what they could do with it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    It seemed like they were all gung-ho about Wayland but then a few weeks back it came out that they were working on their own scheme. Seemed very surprising.

    My gut is that they needed something that worked on phones / tablets now with a lot of SoC driver support so they wanted to take Android SF in and see what they could do with it.
    Daniel Stone said:
    Every Mesa driver supports Wayland, plus numerous properietary drivers (mostly running on ARM)
    Thus SoC and phone support isn't really a reason to not choose Wayland, not to mention that joining forces with Red Hat, Intel, etc by betting on a single display server - Wayland - would make it (much) easier and more realistic to get companies (including Nvidia/AMD) to write their (closed source) drivers with Wayland in mind.

    Canonical knows this well, and the only reason that makes sense for them to create their own display server is to have full control of it - it also explains why they didn't contribute/complain/suggest/ask before anything about Wayland.
    Last edited by mark45; 03-04-2013 at 08:52 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Daniel Stone said:

    "Every Mesa driver supports Wayland, plus numerous properietary drivers (mostly running on ARM)"

    Thus SoC and phone support isn't really a reason to not choose Wayland, not to mention that joining forces with Red Hat, Intel, etc by betting on a single display server - Wayland - would make it (much) easier and more realistic to get companies (including Nvidia/AMD) to write their (closed source) drivers with Wayland in mind.
    I'm thinking there might be some miscommunication or something. Wayland is working with PowerVR, Qualcomm, Tegra and Exynos drivers as Ubuntu Touch is? That's surprising to me. Even still, I'd have to think that a massaged Android version is more mature than Wayland for these cases.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    The main point is Canonical didn't complain at all about Wayland, didn't contribute, didn't ask questions, didn't propose solutions, didn't object to anything, just sat there quiet and then bang - they say Wayland sucks and they "have" to use their own solution. Anyone non-brain damaged knows it's not about Wayland, it's about the NIH syndrome, and more importantly, the fact that Canonical can't control it.
    It is their company. What their developers do is none of your business.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Isn't there any fork yet?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    It is their company. What their developers do is none of your business.
    Those were my words and commenting them is none of your business. There, I reply to assholes like an asshole too.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Those were my words and commenting them is none of your business. There, I reply to assholes like an asshole too.
    You could say that the motivation for MIR in the wiki is like the marketing for openrc some times ago

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •