Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Puts Out Mir 0.0.6 Release For Ubuntu

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    But they move Unity to Qt from what I've heard so I thought they must have chosen Qt for the future.

    I am a developer but never had anything to do with either Qt or GTK. From what I read Qt uses C++ while GTK uses some horrid design trying to make C like C++ using GObject. That thing should be banned.
    They'll use Qt/QML because of Qt Project proved itself to be useful on Mobile Market. They won't use it for the sake of flexibility. (I love Qt, btw.) But there are translators and both Qt and GTK+ applications are working each others' environments anyways. We've *cough* passed those compatibility days. - There is a HUGE list of GTK+ applications that are Popular and currently has good degrees for Everyday Use. And you have absolutely no idea about neither Qt/QML nor GTK+

    But, again, it doesn't matter. If they would choose GTK+ for Unity Next, (or Mobile, or whatever the name it has) you would support that idea too.

    Yet this has nothing to do with "forking the parts of our ecosystem in order to put a stop to forking" idea of yours and, as you claim, theirs.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      This is basically the argument of more initial fragmentation might lead to less fragmentation on the road ahead. All they need is to become even more popular in linux world and that will lead to an increased OS market share for them which might end up challenging the Windows domination.
      The problem here is that Canonical can't do that. They have to rely on the community to develop their OS. And shunning the community, so that no one wants to work with them, is definitely not the way to go. Not that I would appreciate a monopoly of Ubuntu (or any other distro) in the Linux ecosystem.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        The idea was to take one and push it to become dominant, I'm talking over 90% dominance. And the more dominant it will become the more applications will be written or rewritten for it and so more and more dominant it will become. The mission is to have a standard look and feel. Right now with so many platforms, toolkits, APIs etc. that are compatible but not totally compatible the linux desktop is really fragmented and it hurts its adoption.
        Yeah, a great idea, aside from Fascist Standardization. (You may not agree it. But having one DE and showing it as the face of Linux, while Linux has many faces for different tastes, is retaded.) But one Display Server is a must and may force different projects to work together in order to make that Display Server more advanced. The question is; Forking Wayland helps it how?

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        Canonical right now seems to have understood that and understand that more control of the platform is necessary if they want to reach that goal, hence Mir, Unity etc.
        See? That's monopolism. And no, they don't need more power over the platform in order to reach that goal. There's absolutely no logical reason for that. As I said, they're trying to become "the company" of Linux Ecosystem. And eventually becoming the ecosystem itself. Like OSX from BSD.

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        If these become popular then the linux world will become less fragmented as basically 90% of the users will be using Ubuntu which means Mir and Unity and Qt. This is basically the argument of more initial fragmentation might lead to less fragmentation on the road ahead. All they need is to become even more popular in linux world and that will lead to an increased OS market share for them which might end up challenging the Windows domination.
        That's not "less fragmented" that's monopolism. Having an option to choose your own DE is not fragmentation. This simply means that Linux may answer any taste, any idea of Desktop and Desktop Management. Having an option to choose your Distro is not fragmentation. It's Freedom of Choice. - But forking a freaking display manager that is already here to change the future of display management on Linux is pointless. Helping that project is caring your ecosystem. But forking that project because of a very silly reason is pointless.

        As for the record, monopolism is fascism.

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        Of course I have my doubts that removing Windows from power is such a good thing because basically windows 7 just works and has a ton of applications written for it so why go back to dark ages and wait another 10 years to reach the point at which we already are today. Maybe more effort should be put into improving windows instead of challenging its domination and the world would be a better place than it would be if linux would become dominant.
        If you succeed at telling people how their freedom could be raped by such software, then things would be different. In this ecosystem, developing is one thing but being activist about Linux and trying to tell people how many options you have may change a lot of things. So no, Windows is just Windows. I use it because I'm a game designer and when our Engine hits the Linux, Windows will be long history for our Studios. Because we all want to use our own Desktops. We want our Plasmas, Indicators, Unlimited Virtual Desktops. - We hate Compiz.

        Windows is dominant because of their agreements with countries for education purposes (yeah, education purpose, they support education, we love that lie), Windows is dominant because there wasn't any alternative to that, Windows is dominant because over years many software developers created their own software on Windows and this was because of it's populism. Now, it's a standard and it's already becoming pointless while people actually seeing alternatives.

        People are getting more and more aware about Linux. But they have their doubts.

        Neither Windows, nor Mac is popular because of Fascist Standards.

        Edit: Stockholm Syndrome.
        Last edited by reznov; 07-10-2013, 02:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
          People want consistency so if Ubuntu achieves enough market penetration they will probably go with Qt which looks a bit better than GTK+. And hopefully GTK+ will die a slow horrible death. One toolkit is enough. GTK+ programmers will adapt.
          Again, Canonical said GTK+ will be supported by Mir. This means if GTK+ dies a slow horrible death, it will have *nothing* to do with Mir or Wayland.
          I agree there should be only one toolkit. What I'm saying is not that it shouldn't, I'm saying Mir doesn't play *any* role in killing it if they promise supporte. Which they did.
          That idea could work only if Canonical refused to support GTK+ and Mir succeed at a point that almost nobody else used a distribution that doesn't use Mir.
          Also, they'd need GTK+ to not support Mir. If they do, devs can continue using it, and you keep the toolkit alive and kicking.
          Can you see where it fails?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            Right now with so many platforms, toolkits, APIs etc. that are compatible but not totally compatible the linux desktop is really fragmented and it hurts its adoption. Canonical right now seems to have understood that and understand that more control of the platform is necessary if they want to reach that goal, hence Mir, Unity etc. If these become popular then the linux world will become less fragmented as basically 90% of the users will be using Ubuntu which means Mir and Unity and Qt.
            Unity uses custome UI so what toolkit they use won't affect how it does or does not blend with othere toolkits visually. If you "goal" is for any framework to get to a majority, shoudn't you be up in arms about canonical switching from GTK to Qt in stead of just focusing on one?

            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            This is basically the argument of more initial fragmentation might lead to less fragmentation on the road ahead.
            Why not just have them focuse one wayland from the beginning, then there would be no fragmentation.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
              I still find that applications written in GTK+ look different from those in Qt. The idea was to take one and push it to become dominant, I'm talking over 90% dominance. And the more dominant it will become the more applications will be written or rewritten for it and so more and more dominant it will become. The mission is to have a standard look and feel. Right now with so many platforms, toolkits, APIs etc. that are compatible but not totally compatible the linux desktop is really fragmented and it hurts its adoption. Canonical right now seems to have understood that and understand that more control of the platform is necessary if they want to reach that goal, hence Mir, Unity etc. If these become popular then the linux world will become less fragmented as basically 90% of the users will be using Ubuntu which means Mir and Unity and Qt. This is basically the argument of more initial fragmentation might lead to less fragmentation on the road ahead. All they need is to become even more popular in linux world and that will lead to an increased OS market share for them which might end up challenging the Windows domination.

              Of course I have my doubts that removing Windows from power is such a good thing because basically windows 7 just works and has a ton of applications written for it so why go back to dark ages and wait another 10 years to reach the point at which we already are today. Maybe more effort should be put into improving windows instead of challenging its domination and the world would be a better place than it would be if linux would become dominant.
              What a large piece of bullshit. Look, we can exchange some things and get a complete new post:
              Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
              I still find that applications written for Windows look different from those in Linux. The idea was to take one and push it to become dominant, I'm talking over 90% dominance. And the more dominant it will become the more applications will be written or rewritten for it and so more and more dominant it will become. The mission is to have a standard look and feel. Right now with so many OSes, toolkits, APIs etc. that are compatible but not totally compatible the desktop is really fragmented and it hurts its adoption. Canonical right now seems to have understood that and understand that more control of the platform is necessary if they want to reach that goal, hence Mir, Unity etc. If these become popular then the world will become less fragmented as basically 90% of the users will be using Ubuntu. This is basically the argument of more initial fragmentation might lead to less fragmentation on the road ahead. All they need is to become even more popular in linux world and that will lead to an increased OS market share for them which might end up challenging the the Windows domination.

              Of course I have my doubts that removing GTK+ from power is such a good thing because basically it just works and has a ton of applications written for it so why go back to dark ages and wait another 10 years to reach the point at which we already are today. Maybe more effort should be put into improving GTK+ instead of challenging its domination and the world would be a better place than it would be if QT would become dominant.
              Funny, isn't it? But one last thing:
              Maybe more effort should be put into improving windows
              So tell Microsoft to make it open source, how else should we be able to improve it?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                Make windows open source? No need. It would be a pretty bad idea, you people would probably create 10 toolkits and make everything look like shit. I was saying they should put more effort into improving it while having a clear vision and direction. These things are important but the 'linux community' chooses to ignore them at their own peril.
                Right, because windows applications are so consistent. Heck, Microsoft can't even make their own applications look consistent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Good point, Win7 (don't know about 8) still has parts that where never updated from the XP UI style. As fare as i remember the transition to the office 2007 ribon design isn't universally applied to all applications either, and very few non MS applications have embraced the UI.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                    Yes, consistency is bullshit in your mind. Having two applications side by side one written with Qt and the other in GTK+ should look different in your mind. In fact, for consistency they shouldn't, but they can't make them look the same. So just choose one and let the other one become 'legacy' with only old applications still running on it. Any new applications should be written only in the chosen one. This way maybe we will finally have a similar look and feel between applications. You seem to want linux to remain just a toy OS, your thing that makes you different from the unwashed masses who use windows.
                    And again you're talking bullshit. I don't know what you're doing wrong but my applications look the same no matter if they use GTK+ or QT. Where did I say they should look different? Where did I say I want Linux to be a toy OS (it's not, so it can't remain).
                    Make windows open source? No need. It would be a pretty bad idea, you people would probably create 10 toolkits and make everything look like shit. I was saying they should put more effort into improving it while having a clear vision and direction. These things are important but the 'linux community' chooses to ignore them at their own peril.
                    Again: How to improve it without access to the source code? We can have as much visions and directions as we want, it won't help when the only one able to change things is Microsoft.
                    Sometimes I wonder, is it really that bad that Microsoft is in power on the desktop? Would I really want these Stallman fanbois to determine how I use my computer?
                    Stallman fanbois determine how you have to use your computer? Lol, nice trolling dude. If you want your Linux to be QT only don't install GTK+. Simple as that.
                    having one toolkit would be a monopoly and it would be evil. No it wouldn't. Not everything needs to come in 10 variants.
                    And your trolling gets more and more worse. Come on, take some pills, have some sleep. We will talk again when you're sane. And when that happens answer me why you love Mir but hate GTK+. We had one replacement for X, now we have two. Not everything needs to come in 10 variants, especially not a display server. :P
                    Last edited by V10lator; 07-12-2013, 04:24 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      I agree there should be only one toolkit. What I'm saying is not that it shouldn't, I'm saying Mir doesn't play *any* role in killing it if they promise supporte.
                      Why should there only be one toolkit? EFL for example is in a way much better than Qt (faster and more themable), but I am not saying Qt should die. Why can't I have my EFL while you have your Qt?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X