Canonical Is Using Mir To Bring Flutter To Wayland

[jacob]

To give you an Idea,
Devuan support now 3 different Init systems, that you can choose at install time...

Wow! One for each user!

yeah that's called FREEDOM!

My vision of FREEDOM is based on Stallman's Four Freedoms. There is nothing there that specifies that you must be able to "choose" between dozens of crappy init systems or even that there must be such a thing as a *nix "init" at all. By the way you have no "choice" of init systems on ***BSD or Mac or Windows or any other OS that I know of. On Linux you also have no "choice" of thread scheduler or VFS interface or TCP/IP stack, or of GCC's C preprocessor or executable file format... And that is fine because the point of an OS is to provide predictability and foundations, not irrelevant "choice". Yet somehow having "choice" of "init" systems (and only of init systems) on Linux (and only on Linux) is somehow a matter of life and death. Go figure.

[jacob]

tuxd3v Init Freedom is so basic. You also want to pursue Compositor Freedom where you believe all compositors are created equal and should be exchangeable. Then there’s Decoration Freedom where any application and compositor shall support server side decorations. Oh and be a real Chad and do it all in C++!

/s

Don't forget Language Freedom! Having a hard dependency on a specific programming language compiler is EVIL and contrary to Holy Unix Philosophy! You should have CHOICE of which language you decide to compile your compositor in.

[RomuloP]

Don't forget Language Freedom! Having a hard dependency on a specific programming language compiler is EVIL and contrary to Holy Unix Philosophy! You should have CHOICE of which language you decide to compile your compositor in.

You make it sounds like Unix philosophy is a set of practices with zero concreteness... How dare you.

[jacob]

You make it sounds like Unix philosophy is a set of practices with zero concreteness... How dare you.

While in reality it's a set of religious beliefs with zero practical evidence or success stories to back them up ;-)

[tuxd3v]

tuxd3v Init Freedom is so basic. You also want to pursue Compositor Freedom where you believe all compositors are created equal and should be exchangeable. Then there’s Decoration Freedom where any application and compositor shall support server side decorations. Oh and be a real Chad and do it all in C++!
/s

Probably somewhere there are places were complete freedom is difficult or painful to achieve.
But the more freedom you have...more power to you!

Someone has to start by some place,
And those thousands and thousands of guys spread across the Galaxy are doing a great Job bringing freedom to choose, the most you can..

I don't see many distributions with a focus of that.. C++ is a option I have seen some c++ projects recently( I am not a fan of c++ ), but if they exist why not bring them, as a option, if they are valid alternatives, they are a valid option..

[tuxd3v]

Wow! One for each user!

lol
No,
One per installation.. it should be enough,
A lot better than the majority of distros around that have zero freedom on that..

My vision of FREEDOM..

I believe you don't have a vision of Freedom, because you have none..
Since you start to feel the taste, you can't stop

[jacob]

I believe you don't have a vision of Freedom, because you have none..

Whatever you believe. It does not matter any more than any of your other beliefs.

[starshipeleven]

You make it sounds like Unix philosophy is a set of practices with zero concreteness... How dare you.

Technically speaking, Unix phylosphy is very concrete set of practices to write decent and reusable code. Modularity, standardized interfaces...

It's Veteran Unix Admins that think it contains such principles as "everything should be divided in tiny basic cli tools to duct-tape together with shell script".

[RomuloP]

Technically speaking, Unix phylosphy is very concrete set of practices to write decent and reusable code. Modularity, standardized interfaces...

It's Veteran Unix Admins that think it contains such principles as "everything should be divided in tiny basic cli tools to duct-tape together with shell script".

Being a concrete set o practices is about not needing to chose a specific person to get a right interpretation. Computer science do not benefit from `bibles`.

[starshipeleven]

Being a concrete set o practices is about not needing to chose a specific person to get a right interpretation. Computer science do not benefit from `bibles`.

It all depends on how stringent are the requirements for "specific person". It's as low as "being able to read fucking english". I admit that it's a too high bar for many, but so is most of anything else.
I mean, we get morons that misread scientific papers too and therefore we get antivaxx, anti5G and various fun forms of pseudoscience.
Does that invalidate science? No it doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

The Unix philosophy is documented by Doug McIlroy[1] in the Bell System Technical Journal from 1978:[2]

Make each program do one thing well.
To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new "features".
Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program.
Don't clutter output with extraneous information.
Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats.
Don't insist on interactive input.
Design and build software, even operating systems, to be tried early, ideally within weeks.
Don't hesitate to throw away the clumsy parts and rebuild them.
Use tools in preference to unskilled help to lighten a programming task, even if you have to detour to build the tools and expect to throw some of them out after you've finished using them.

In their award-winning Unix paper of 1974, Ritchie and Thompson quote the following design considerations:[3]

Make it easy to write, test, and run programs.
Interactive use instead of batch processing.
Economy and elegance of design due to size constraints ("salvation through suffering").
Self-supporting system: all Unix software is maintained under Unix.

and apparently it was the base for the creation of the KISS principle

Eric Raymond's 17 Unix Rules

In his book The Art of Unix Programming that was first published in 2003,[11] Eric S. Raymond, an American programmer and open source advocate, summarizes the Unix philosophy as KISS Principle of "Keep it Simple, Stupid."[12] He provides a series of design rules:[1]

Build modular programs
Write readable programs
Use composition
Separate mechanisms from policy
Write simple programs
Write small programs
Write transparent programs
Write robust programs
Make data complicated when required, not the program
Build on potential users' expected knowledge
Avoid unnecessary output
Write programs which fail in a way that is easy to diagnose
Value developer time over machine time
Write abstract programs that generate code instead of writing code by hand
Prototype software before polishing it
Write flexible and open programs
Make the program and protocols extensible.

Now tell me, is this something that is hard to read or understand? Does it have any complex meanings hidden in tales? Is there a lot of highly dubious and conflicting information?