Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 167 of 167

Thread: Ubuntu To Abandon Upstart, Switch To Systemd

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sireangelus View Post
    I think it's absurd that to run a DE you have to change your sysvinit
    then don't like this ide, stupid.
    we are back at step one. you either want to run it, or not. either way, being against ide's dependency only because it is a dependency, is stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by sireangelus View Post
    , it's an artificial dependency and I don't like the idea not one bit, makes the whole " Linux is modular independent and promotes choice" argument void.
    linux does not promote choices. but you have a choice of provide module implementing logind dbus api and use it as gnome's dependency instead of logind. but you chosen to spread uninformed bullshit, because nobody did your job for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by sireangelus View Post
    As he said, this is the true reason systemd HAD to be chosen:
    no, he just said he is a moron like you. systemd was chosen because it is superior in every way.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skrapion View Post
    Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read it.

    It doesn't really make sense to implement the Wayland protocol in Mir, unless they're planning on only implementing part of it, or adding proprietary extensions.

    Wayland and Mir aim to do the same thing: to be the glue between the compositor and the clients. They both do it through a server library (libwayland-server/libmirserver) and a client library (libwayland-client/libmirclient) which communicate to each other through IPC.

    The major differences?

    1) Wayland has a well-defined protocol between libwayland-client and libwayland-server, so you could theoretically reimplement the protocol yourself instead of using the standard libraries. Mir makes no promises here, and warns that things will probably break if you try this.

    2) The server libraries draw the line between library and compositor at a different point. A lot of stuff that Wayland expects to be done in the compositor is done in libmirserver instead of in Unity.

    3) The two projects prioritize features differently.

    That's pretty much it. Architecturally, they're more similar than dissimilar.
    Is any distro going to use Weston? Is Weston intended to be used or is it only intended as a paradigm of sorts (an example)? Mutter, KWin--These compositors will be adapted to the Wayland protocol. Could they just switch to Weston instead?

    Why the hell is Canonical developing Mir? What does Mir do that Weston cannot? Further, why is Canonical not making Mir compatible with the Wayland Protocol? What is the real reason? I've read the "media statements" and I can't figure out where the payoff is. It's just a whole lot of work and I don't see what it's going to allow them to do better. I can understand developing Unity Desktop because it is a visually distinctive appearance and it gives Ubuntu some individuality from the other Linux DEs (I'm very happy with Unity design IMHO). But why pump limited resources into things like UpStart and Mir when you are only going to cripple them with CLA stuff? #1) it alienates the community you speak to support and praise and #2) it prevents your work from being widely adopted because the wider community is opposed to CLA crap.

    So is Mir a legitimate need, or is it just to get something with a CLA on it like UpStart had? But if it's just to get a CLA on it, doesn't Canonical see that it won't survive? The community is not going to support it. And Canonical isn't the equivalent of Apple with billions of dollars to blow on doing everything itself. I agree with a previous post which stated that UpStart never took off because of the CLA. It's just not appropriate for the community to embrace something like that. I don't see how Mir will fare any better than UpStart. I just don't see how it's going to be better than Wayland compositors nor how it's going to make Unity so much better that it justifies the cost/work, alienated community, etc.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rgap View Post
    Is any distro going to use Weston? Is Weston intended to be used or is it only intended as a paradigm of sorts (an example)? Mutter, KWin--These compositors will be adapted to the Wayland protocol. Could they just switch to Weston instead?
    At least KDE attempts to share as much code between the X11 and Wayland implementations so KWin will simply support both. Apparently KWin already has loads of code that's not at all related to X11 anyway. I'd expect it's the same with Gnome. If Weston means they can re-use less of their existing code, it might or might not make sense. For DE's without a compositor Weston with XWayland seems definitely the way to go in short-term at least. Weston is actually already pretty usable with the exception that XWayland is unreliable and mouse acceleration seems to be missing.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rgap View Post
    Is any distro going to use Weston? Is Weston intended to be used or is it only intended as a paradigm of sorts (an example)? Mutter, KWin--These compositors will be adapted to the Wayland protocol. Could they just switch to Weston instead?
    Weston is only intended as a reference implementation of a Wayland compositor. It's just a test-bed. Although I believe Hawaii is a Weston fork that intends to make a fully usable DE.

    So is Mir a legitimate need, or is it just to get something with a CLA on it like UpStart had?
    It's not fair to compare Mir to Upstart. When Upstart came out, it was light years ahead of SysVInit, and systemd wasn't even a sparkle in Lennart's eye. CLA ended up killing it, but at the time it really was something we needed.

    If you go back to when Mir was first announced, it's clear that the developers didn't know what they were talking about, citing weaknesses in Wayland that didn't exist. They even had the gall to claim that one of their strengths was the ability to use Android drivers, by using a library that was designed for Wayland!

    The only immediate benefit to Mir is that they can develop features in the order that's important to them, and they don't have to deal with the bureaucracy of getting things patched upstream.

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skrapion View Post
    The only immediate benefit to Mir is that they can develop features in the order that's important to them, and they don't have to deal with the bureaucracy of getting things patched upstream.
    The question is whether the priorities of Mir end up producing anything that is technically different to Wayland. It would be interesting to see any benchmarks that directly compare performance of the two, particularly in the areas important to mobile like memory usage and battery consumption.

Posting Permissions

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