Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Mir Works On Screencasting, Parallelized Page Flipping

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onuca_V View Post
    Of course. Mir can't, anytime soon, be a replacement for X. It can be only a replacement for Ubuntu and other distros using Unity (are there any others?). If it's fine and not great, well that's a pointless discussion.

    I want Mir to be great, don't get me wrong. But I think Mir can't replace X in the GNU/Linux world. So, both have a place in this ecosystem: I'm just saying is clear Mir is for Unity/Ubuntu and an alternative to X needs to be developed for everyone else. If both projects succeed even better. I did not use the word "bad" at all.
    its my understanding that mir would would in any DE, ofc canonical wont make it easy but they wont make it hard either.
    they are solving theyr issues they arent gonna give you something that you can just copy&paste and be done with it, even wayland requires man power to work.
    all DEs have to do is want it enough just like wayland...

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSoulz View Post
    its my understanding that mir would would in any DE, ofc canonical wont make it easy but they wont make it hard either.
    they are solving theyr issues they arent gonna give you something that you can just copy&paste and be done with it, even wayland requires man power to work.
    all DEs have to do is want it enough just like wayland...
    And that brings up the big question. What does Mir do to make the other DE's want it? What does it offer that Wayland doesn't already offer?

    With Wayland, there's open development, where DE developers are welcomed to join in and contribute and write extensions and offer them to be merged to the core protocol and everyone benefits from the work of everyone. Everything is out in the open, there's no asymmetric CLA's (for those who care about such things, personally I've never seen it as a huge concern but it matters to some and thus it will alienate many developers like Upstart did) and there's no requirement to make Unity first, everything else secondary.

    Everyone can take Wayland and make it work for them, because if it doesn't have something they need, they can add it, but the same is not true of Mir - Mir only cares about Unity. If you wanted to use Mir and said "I need to extend the functionality because I need this thing for my DE" Canonical might say, "sorry, we don't need that for Unity" and that's that, no dice. With Wayland, you can always extend it yourself and if the extension is good, it'll get adopted in core protocol, but even if it doesn't, you can still use it in your own DE.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOne View Post
    Lets see how running a gnome and kde application at the same time will be when wayland hits mainstream as how packagers will deal with the different wayland backends.
    This isn't a problems since both will be talking the Wayland protocol. It's like
    Http. No matter what web-server or web-browser you have, it works as both
    speaks a (de-facto) standardized protocol.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So it's basically at the same point as Cyanogenmod at this point.
    Somewhere like that, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    There aren't any compositors. Canonical's implementation is the only one.
    One year after Waylands announcement there only where Weston.
    The design pattern still applies.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    They "promise" lots of things... like they promised to support Wayland...
    They never promised that. As a developer I have yet to be let down. They
    deliver on schedule and keeps their promised support time. Also changing the
    API would upset a lot of people inside Canonical working on both Unity 8 and
    unity-system-compositor.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Right, like libwayland.
    No not at all. libwayland just makes sure the server can talk to the clients and
    vice versa in a (de-facto) standardized way.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Right, like what Wayland does.
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    That's FUD and just plain wrong. There is a base implementation, libwayland.
    libwayland just maps the protocol to an API. Weston is a refferece implementation,
    however even the Wayland developers themselves says you shouldn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Besides which, that whole "let's put everything in one monolithic beast" approach was already tried with X, and it wasn't good.
    Mir is nowhere near X. Mir is much closer to Wayland but with the difference that
    it is a Display Server and handles the hardware side for its compositors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onuca_V View Post
    Second, Mir is not working just fine right now and I hope it will work fine by the end of the year (wishful thinking, maybe, let's see at the middle of the year)
    It works fine on the phone and tablet. No one have started to use it on the
    desktop yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onuca_V View Post
    Third, IF Mir works great this year, how much work would be needed for GNOME, KDE or E19 to implement Mir? Is it even viable?
    Less work than to implement Wayland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onuca_V View Post
    What if Canonical changes Mir license just because they need to?
    They doesn't have a track record of doing that. And yet if they do, we'll see
    by then what license they change to. If it's bad we can always continue to
    use and fork those releases that are under GPLv3 and LGPLv3.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    What does it offer that Wayland doesn't already offer?
    Hardware abstraction

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    With Wayland, there's open development, where DE developers are welcomed to join in and contribute and write extensions and offer them to be merged to the core protocol and everyone benefits from the work of everyone. Everything is out in the open, there's no asymmetric CLA's (for those who care about such things, personally I've never seen it as a huge concern but it matters to some and thus it will alienate many developers like Upstart did) and there's no requirement to make Unity first, everything else secondary.
    The CLA is a problem for developers yes, and we would probably never see mass
    adoption (partly because of Wayland and partly because of CLA). However for a
    user it doesn't matter at all.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    They never promised that.
    No, they would never... wait, what's this: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551 ?

    Less work than to implement Wayland.
    Source? And if that's the case why do GNOME, KDE and E19 have Wayland backends but no Mir backends?

    Hardware abstraction
    Again: Source?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    Somewhere like that, yes.
    While Wayland is being used on actual production phones. Phones you can buy with Wayland preinstalled.

    Wasn't one reason for Mir supposed to be that they need a faster solution for their mobile devices?

    One year after Waylands announcement there only where Weston.
    The design pattern still applies.
    So what you're saying is, it's going to be 5 years from now before Mir becomes viable enough for anyone to consider it? Ok...

    That's a really pointless comparison though, the two systems were made in very different circumstances. No one started developing a Wayland compositor one year after the work started on Wayland, because there would have been no point in doing so - most of the time spent in the beginning years of Wayland was doing the plumbing, the groundwork, preparing the graphics stack for a new, modern display system. To a layman observer it may appear like Wayland took many years to accomplish nothing, but in fact they did a lot in that time. A lot of things that were necessary to support a modern display system.

    Then when Wayland was done with the hard-but-invisible work, and got into the more user-visible stage - this is where the DE's and toolkits got into implementing support big time, causing more user-visible development, making it appear to the layman as if the development is "picking up speed" - at that point, Mir jumped in, took advantage of all that hard groundwork made by Wayland developers, and started building their own system.

    So Mir wouldn't even be possible without the groundwork done by Wayland developers, and its development only appears faster because they took advantage of all that work that was made for them.

    They never promised that.
    Yes they did.

    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551

    Quote Originally Posted by Shuttleworth in 2010
    We considered and spoke with several proprietary options, on the basis that they might be persuaded to open source their work for a new push, and we evaluated the cost of building a new display manager, informed by the lessons learned in Wayland. We came to the conclusion that any such effort would only create a hard split in the world which wasn’t worth the cost of having done it. There are issues with Wayland, but they seem to be solvable, we’d rather be part of solving them than chasing a better alternative. So Wayland it is.
    As a developer I have yet to be let down. They
    deliver on schedule
    Like the Ubuntu TV? Ubuntu on Android? Oh, and last summer they were saying how Ubuntu phones would be in stores by now. Don't see any Ubuntu phones in stores... And Mir itself is a pretty good example as well.

    Seems to me like Canonical makes lots of grand gestures and hypes up future products which they end up being unable to deliver. There's a word for that: vaporware. Now I don't want to be too harsh on Canonical, they are trying, but sometimes the company just seems like an attention-deficit child, starting new shiny projects everywhere, but never following through on any of them... they should pick something and concentrate on that, instead of trying to do everything at once and then later realizing they don't have the resources to actually follow through on their plans.

    and keeps their promised support time.
    That they have so far done, which is commendable.

    Also changing the
    API would upset a lot of people inside Canonical working on both Unity 8 and
    unity-system-compositor.
    So? Those people are being paid to work on whatever they work on. If they're upset, they're upset - doesn't matter, they work on what their boss tells them to work on. Many people get upset in and because of their work.

    Besides, Canonical has a history of upsetting some of their developers/contributors... remember the guy who was working on porting LightDM to Wayland? Who wasn't even told about Mir?

    No not at all. libwayland just makes sure the server can talk to the clients and
    vice versa in a (de-facto) standardized way.

    No.

    libwayland just maps the protocol to an API. Weston is a refferece implementation,
    however even the Wayland developers themselves says you shouldn't use it.
    Implementing a compositor in Wayland is very easy. The protocol API allows the developer to implement features that are already made possible by the API, and do all this in a compatible way.

    Besides, nothing stops anyone from forking Weston and using it as a base to build up their own compositor.

    Mir is nowhere near X. Mir is much closer to Wayland but with the difference that
    it is a Display Server and handles the hardware side for its compositors.
    Right, so everything is statically implemented, and if you want to support hardware Canonical is not interested in? Tough luck. And it's just going to end up in the same state X is now - with Wayland, the entire system is designed so that it can be extended and renewed but in a backwards-compatible way, preventing the same problem from happening as where we're now with X. With Mir, the one monolithic implementation is eventually going to get old and outdated, just like X did.

    It works fine on the phone and tablet. No one have started to use it on the
    desktop yet.
    And no one is selling phones or tablets with Mir preinstalled. Phones/tablets aren't like computers where you can have a viable business model by selling just the operating system. You NEED preinstalls for there to be any chance of making it in the mobile. Otherwise, you're just pouring money into a geek hobby.

    Less work than to implement Wayland.
    No. That is total and utter BS.

    They doesn't have a track record of doing that. And yet if they do, we'll see
    by then what license they change to. If it's bad we can always continue to
    use and fork those releases that are under GPLv3 and LGPLv3.
    That doesn't matter and isn't the point. I don't care about the CLA. The point is that many developers don't see it that way, they see the CLA as asymmetrical and suspicious, and are discouraged from wanting to contribute.

    Hardware abstraction
    Wayland offers that too.

    The CLA is a problem for developers yes, and we would probably never see mass
    adoption (partly because of Wayland and partly because of CLA). However for a
    user it doesn't matter at all.
    It matters to the user when the software they want to use isn't compatible.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    While Wayland is being used on actual production phones. Phones you can buy with Wayland preinstalled.
    Sure. Never said against that, never will. Doesn't really care however. I don't like the Tizen UI
    (this is very personal, I'm not saying it's bad). However this doesn't make Mir a lesser alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Wasn't one reason for Mir supposed to be that they need a faster solution for their mobile devices?
    Not really, it were that mobile needs server allocated buffers. And no one does that in Wayland
    (except for Tizen) and as they want mobile and desktop to use exactly the same codebase
    they would need to use server allocated buffers on desktop as well, creating troubles for
    stuff expecting client allocated buffers. Having a hard breakage is usually better as you then
    can handle that in a good way (add Mir support in toolkits or a WaylandMir layer), instead
    of accepting random buggs and breakages.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So what you're saying is, it's going to be 5 years from now before Mir becomes viable enough for anyone to consider it? Ok...
    Probably not 5 years because, as you said, Wayland started in a totally different position.
    However more than a year (and especially more than ~6 months of actually working) should
    be expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Then when Wayland was done with the hard-but-invisible work, and got into the more user-visible stage - this is where the DE's and toolkits got into implementing support big time, causing more user-visible development, making it appear to the layman as if the development is "picking up speed" - at that point, Mir jumped in, took advantage of all that hard groundwork made by Wayland developers, and started building their own system.
    I'm not denying that work and I'm really thankful. Else we would be stuck with X for several years.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Yes they did.
    I'm hardly calling that a promise, just publish a decision. Decisions are subject to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Like the Ubuntu TV? Ubuntu on Android? Oh, and last summer they were saying how Ubuntu phones would be in stores by now. Don't see any Ubuntu phones in stores... And Mir itself is a pretty good example as well.
    No API or developer information were published for Ubuntu TV or Ubuntu on Android so neither
    I nor anyone else have work that is on hold because of that. At the time an SDK were released
    for Ubuntu Touch is were known not to be available at spring. If no phones are released this
    year we can start talking about a delay.
    For stuff that matters to developers, like distro release. The last delay were 8 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So? Those people are being paid to work on whatever they work on. If they're upset, they're upset - doesn't matter, they work on what their boss tells them to work on. Many people get upset in and because of their work.
    True, however that would just be extra work for themselves. I don't have any reason to break
    the API on purpose. As they don't promise the protocol they can easily make changes that
    doesn't break API and just add new headers if necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Besides, Canonical has a history of upsetting some of their developers/contributors... remember the guy who was working on porting LightDM to Wayland? Who wasn't even told about Mir?
    Yes, that were very badly handled.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Implementing a compositor in Wayland is very easy. The protocol API allows the developer to implement features that are already made possible by the API, and do all this in a compatible way.
    It's not easy if you want one in pair with Unity, Gnome, KDE, Xfce or similar. Of course that isn't
    easy on Mir either, but should certainly be easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Besides, nothing stops anyone from forking Weston and using it as a base to build up their own compositor.
    Not stopping, but the Wayland developers themselves recommend against that. Weston is only
    created to test the Wayland protocol as it develops, it's not intended for production.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Right, so everything is statically implemented, and if you want to support hardware Canonical is not interested in? Tough luck. And it's just going to end up in the same state X is now - with Wayland, the entire system is designed so that it can be extended and renewed but in a backwards-compatible way, preventing the same problem from happening as where we're now with X. With Mir, the one monolithic implementation is eventually going to get old and outdated, just like X did.
    First, X is very extendible. That is why it have been able to survive for this long. Without stuff
    like DRI and DRI2 we wouldn't have managed this far.
    Second, Mir also support extensions. But it does the job that every compositor would want to
    do anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    And no one is selling phones or tablets with Mir preinstalled. Phones/tablets aren't like computers where you can have a viable business model by selling just the operating system. You NEED preinstalls for there to be any chance of making it in the mobile. Otherwise, you're just pouring money into a geek hobby.
    Of course. That is why Canonical have signed deals with a number of big operators.
    http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/carrier-advisory-group
    I can only talk for 3 as those are the only one with business in my country but they
    are a carrier that often launch new thing. Here they were the one launching 3G,
    Feature phones (camera, video talk, mp3 and such) and Android. I would actually
    be more surprised if they didn't try to launch Ubuntu than if they do.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    Not really, it were that mobile needs server allocated buffers. And no one does that in Wayland
    (except for Tizen) and as they want mobile and desktop to use exactly the same codebase
    they would need to use server allocated buffers on desktop as well, creating troubles for
    stuff expecting client allocated buffers. Having a hard breakage is usually better as you then
    can handle that in a good way (add Mir support in toolkits or a WaylandMir layer), instead
    of accepting random buggs and breakages.
    No. The decision between server side and client side allocated buffers is done entirely in the EGL implementation, Wayland and Wayland compositors don't care, at all. You can use the same compositor and toolkits with the Mesa libEGL, which uses client side buffers or with some other libEGL which uses server side buffers, nothing will break.

Posting Permissions

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