Quote Originally Posted by verde View Post
I think there are fundamental differences between Mir and Wayland (like compositor)
Yes, there are, actually. The fundamental difference is this: Mir is a display server, a single software made by Canonical, for Canonical. Whereas, Wayland is a protocol which enables the creation of compositors, which may or may not be display servers, a protocol made by the community for the community.

and the "extension" way Wayland responded to Mir's features seams like another Xorg situation.
What? Do you even know what you're talking about? How exactly do you think Wayland has "responded" to "Mir's features" in any way? Considering, A) Wayland is much older than Mir, B) Mir wouldn't be possible without all the work done by Wayland developers, and C) Wayland is still ahead in schedule compared to Mir. Please explain.

If you refer to Shuttleworth's comment on how "Wayland is bad because extensions", that's a total red herring - Mark doesn't understand tech, he's basically a PR guy. Not saying there's anything wrong about that, but one should know one's strenghts and weaknesses. Wayland allows extensions, yes, but that actually only prevents fragmentation - it ensures that no company will need to fork the entire protocol to suit their needs, they can just use extensions. And it's very hypocritical of Mark to complain about "extensions hurting compatibility" when Canonical has no intention of maintaining any kind of compatibility for Mir...

Plus that is clear now how much behind would Ubuntu touch been if they where waiting for Wayland to work the way they wanted.
How is that clear? Jolla is releasing their first Sailfish phone by the end of this year, and it will use Wayland. Meanwhile we still don't have even an estimated release date for a native Ubuntu phone. So why exactly could Ubuntu not have used Wayland in their phone, again?