Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Until it forces mir on everybody and everybody will use it. They have push, wayland doesn't. Most users don't care so most users will use mir since canonical says so. Wayland will be dead on arrival for the simple fact that Ubuntu is the most popular and Canonical will choose mir over wayland.
    Actually, Ubuntu has almost no push b/c they don't make much money, and they don't have serious engineering resources to push things. Think about how little of their contributions have actually percolated to the larger ecosystem. One can argue that they tries to upstream them, but that ignores the point that they wouldn't need to if the changes had been interesting enough on their own. Upstart was their biggest success, IMHO, and that got utterly trampled upon by systemd in very quick order.
    I'm convinced Canonical is going to be gone within 5 years (Ubuntu will be around somewhat longer).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    293

    Default Anyone who is not a Canonical/Ubuntu-based distro - pay attention!

    This is your opportunity to seize the moment by declaring your allegiance to Wayland/XWayland - and earn thousands of fans/followers/users/developers right now.

    Wayland played their cards right, and with their attitude even attracted the X developers to join in. X is not a -complete- throwaway, despite what Canonical slightly suggested in the original press release which I read, while aiming at Wayland.

    There are -many- solid concepts in X, when properly distilled, transformed and reapplied to Wayland, can carry Wayland a light year further than it did X, while carrying X on its back.

    The only reason Canonical is pursuing this "Peace" display server is because they are trying to be too eclectic, a la Apple style, to cultivate a certain image, possibly move away from their "freemium" model and/or make a buck and a dime off Linux. There's nothing wrong with that - but in my view, it won't happen while they are creating division in such a fundamental piece as a display server, by suffering from the NIH syndrome that is all too known to the Linux fanbase/developers.

    If Canonical wants to stand on developer's toes instead of their shoulders, then let them - it's a guaranteed bite me in the ass comeback/ROI...when they go from a top ranking distro to a bottom ranking one.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Actually, Ubuntu has almost no push b/c they don't make much money, and they don't have serious engineering resources to push things. Think about how little of their contributions have actually percolated to the larger ecosystem. One can argue that they tries to upstream them, but that ignores the point that they wouldn't need to if the changes had been interesting enough on their own. Upstart was their biggest success, IMHO, and that got utterly trampled upon by systemd in very quick order.
    I'm convinced Canonical is going to be gone within 5 years (Ubuntu will be around somewhat longer).
    It doesn't make much money? It doesn't make ANY money. They are making a loss year after year.
    http://www.internetnews.com/blog/ske...rofitable.html

    Quite amusing how Ubuntu fans think that Canonical is this super company that can boss other companies around to have them the suck their dick.
    Tell me how many movies have you watched on your Ubuntu TVs recently? And how's your Ubuntu Phone going? Any carrier support yet? No?
    Well Firefox OS got 18 companies on its bandwagon just for comparison.

    Ask yourself just one time. What if Canonical fails with their Mobile vision? They'll have neglected the desktop in the mean time. Do you guys think they'll come crawling back admitting defeat or maybe give up Ubuntu for good, because it's a total money drain for Shuttleworth?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grotgrot View Post
    Note that Canonical's Contributor License Agreement strongly discourages code collaboration. Requiring copyright assignment is pretty rare, and even rarer still when the assignee can take the code proprietary. It also discourages working together since it puts everyone not the assignee on a considerably lower footing.
    Free Software Foundation also requires such an assignment for some of their projects (e.g. GCC). Just saying.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweenk View Post
    Free Software Foundation also requires such an assignment for some of their projects (e.g. GCC). Just saying.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
    I'm just going to hijack your conversation here

    Section 2.3 of Canonical's agreement says this:

    Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
    include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
    Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
    permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
    condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
    license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
    licenses which We are using for the Material on the
    Submission Date.
    They have the right to make the software proprietary, but it must be in addition the license of the software when the contribution was accepted. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, since Mir is licensed under the LGPL and GPL, they could never dual license it with a proprietary license.

    If what I said is true, I'm not worried about the CLA.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    This is your opportunity to seize the moment by declaring your allegiance to Wayland/XWayland - and earn thousands of fans/followers/users/developers right now.

    Wayland played their cards right, and with their attitude even attracted the X developers to join in. X is not a -complete- throwaway, despite what Canonical slightly suggested in the original press release which I read, while aiming at Wayland.

    There are -many- solid concepts in X, when properly distilled, transformed and reapplied to Wayland, can carry Wayland a light year further than it did X, while carrying X on its back.

    The only reason Canonical is pursuing this "Peace" display server is because they are trying to be too eclectic, a la Apple style, to cultivate a certain image, possibly move away from their "freemium" model and/or make a buck and a dime off Linux. There's nothing wrong with that - but in my view, it won't happen while they are creating division in such a fundamental piece as a display server, by suffering from the NIH syndrome that is all too known to the Linux fanbase/developers.

    If Canonical wants to stand on developer's toes instead of their shoulders, then let them - it's a guaranteed bite me in the ass comeback/ROI...when they go from a top ranking distro to a bottom ranking one.
    The thing is, Canonical wasn't interested in getting the lion's share of the 1% of Linux desktop users out there. They were trying to go after people that weren't Linux users and broaden the base.

    As it is now the other Linux distros are just wallowing around with the 1% as none of them seem interested (or, more likely, capable) of creating a user experience that isn't a complete turd.

    It's a shame that Steam has come at the least fortunate time: we don't have a non-turd Linux desktop yet for the common person, though Ubuntu was the closest to getting there.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The thing is, Canonical wasn't interested in getting the lion's share of the 1% of Linux desktop users out there. They were trying to go after people that weren't Linux users and broaden the base.

    As it is now the other Linux distros are just wallowing around with the 1% as none of them seem interested (or, more likely, capable) of creating a user experience that isn't a complete turd.

    It's a shame that Steam has come at the least fortunate time: we don't have a non-turd Linux desktop yet for the common person, though Ubuntu was the closest to getting there.
    I truly hate this 1% crap.... The reality is that it's at least 2.3%...

    230%.. When talking about anything 230% is alot...

    EDIT: And that doesnt even capture the whole picture. I'm an american and MS dominates this market.But if you look at market shares by locality there are places where local marketshare numbers for linux is significantly higher than that.
    Last edited by duby229; 03-05-2013 at 08:05 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    I truly hate this 1% crap.... The reality is that it's at least 2.3%...

    230%.. When talking about anything 230% is alot...
    Ok.

    2.3%.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The thing is, Canonical wasn't interested in getting the lion's share of the 1% of Linux desktop users out there. They were trying to go after people that weren't Linux users and broaden the base.

    As it is now the other Linux distros are just wallowing around with the 1% as none of them seem interested (or, more likely, capable) of creating a user experience that isn't a complete turd.

    It's a shame that Steam has come at the least fortunate time: we don't have a non-turd Linux desktop yet for the common person, though Ubuntu was the closest to getting there.
    I agree. Some are vying for "leaving Linux to be the best in its niche" - running on rackmounts in dark, cold server rooms of all corporations, being the backbone of the Internet - but I am for Linux taking over the desktop, assassinating both OS X and Windows over the long run because of their complacency or if not outright assassinating them, then at least competing with both on an equal footing.

    It is a future in which your and my desktop is controlled by no one specific corporation due to its licensing nature - God Protection License (GPL , and everyone gets out of it as much as they put into it - it's for our collective benefit rather than a group's or individual's.

    Linux needs a solid desktop BADLY if it's going to become commonplace/commoditized - X isn't it, never was and never will be. Wayland is the seed that we need to nurture, and Mir and the like is the cancer we need to irradiate out of existence (no offense to any of the Mir developers - it's just that their leadership has gotten too self-centered, IMHO).

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chenxiaolong View Post
    I'm just going to hijack your conversation here

    Section 2.3 of Canonical's agreement says this:

    Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
    include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
    Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
    permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
    condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
    license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
    licenses which We are using for the Material on the
    Submission Date.

    They have the right to make the software proprietary, but it must be in addition the license of the software when the contribution was accepted. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, since Mir is licensed under the LGPL and GPL, they could never dual license it with a proprietary license.

    If what I said is true, I'm not worried about the CLA.
    You should still be worried its just saying that YOUR contribution will always be licenced under the curect licence. i.e they just have to release the source for the version your code was included in, which everyone would have access to anyway. BUT they dont need to provide the source code for the newer relicenced code. i.e You might contribute to version 1 then they release version 2 which is now closed source your change is still provided as source in version 1 so no need to release it for version 2. This is how I read it anyway.

    They real issue here and something I haven't seen anyone bring up yet is:

    Whats worse for software Freedom GPL software with the CLA or code licenced under MIT. My understanding is either of them can become proprietary.

Posting Permissions

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