Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Running Wayland: It Works, But A Lot Of Work Remains

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
    I keep coming back here despite getting no value out of the experience
    phoronix forums stockholm syndrome ...

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      yeah, next time when you try to get someone to use linux tell them if it doesn't work well it's community effort so get to work bitch!

      So what if I don't pay them? I still have a right to complain? WTF is this attitude? If I see a bug I report it. That is complaining. And it's good. That's how we improve. Sometimes it's easier to tell the developer what I don't like so he can fix it instead of me reading tons of code and fixing his bugs. Why do I have to act as if everything is perfect when it isn't? I am sick of people saying that linux is easy or that it just works.
      Why the hell would I try to get people to switch to Linux? I'm not an evangelist. If they find out for themself and/or ask me about it, I'll gladly help them.
      Yes, you have a right to complain, just as you have the right to be an ahole. The thing is, no one listens to aholes. Your pointless ranting on Phoronix forums
      has exactly 0% effect on the development of the software in question. Reporting bugs is good. Yelling at people because they don't use up
      their free time to fix them instead of earning money is just being an asshole.

      Also, no one is saying Linux is "easy or just works", no one except for zealots maybe. Often it just works, sometimes it doesn't.
      And I'm really sorry that you've been "misguided" by zealots into using Linux. But there's just no point in marketing it as something it isn't,
      so you shouldn't either.

      Comment


      • #73
        Ancurio
        Also, no one is saying Linux is "easy or just works", no one except for zealots maybe. Often it just works, sometimes it doesn't.
        And I'm really sorry that you've been "misguided" by zealots into using Linux. But there's just no point in marketing it as something it isn't,
        so you shouldn't either.
        When you've done your homework and purchased well known, supported hardware, Linux is easy, and yes it does just work. Linux installers have, for a long period of time, been far superior to the Windows installers for one reason: Human beings had to actually install it to use it.

        It doesn't take alot of effort to check the support status of hardware on Linux, and even less time to setup a system once you have a good baseline. But guess what, for the average user this doesn't help one bit.

        OEMs could much easier do this work themselves, delivering well tested Linux installations with supported hardware to the masses. One thing I think Valve is going to teach us is how to reasonably do package management on a per-user level (thus, not requiring root)... and hopefully, someone will pick up the torch and implement a similar FOSS solution on all major distributions.

        That's the missing piece, people. We need one /home level package manager to rule them all, and then all of the problems for OEMs basically disappear, and Linux JUST WORKS on the hardware it has been tested on.

        By the way, I fucking hate PulseAudio, and don't use it. DMix does the job, (contrary to what alot of know-nothings that lurk around here say). For my uses it works, and more transparently than PA. Don't blame the applications, eg: "They use PA as/via ALSA (emulation) so they suck", they're just expecting ALSA, and PA's ALSA emulation isn't perfect. This horse has been beaten to death, then to a pulp, then to a blood pile, and now almost to DUST. People obviously have problems with it or they wouldn't complain... just like people obviously have had success with it or they wouldn't use it. I still install it from time to time to see if the status quo has changed.

        Really though, enough of the personal attacks. It doesn't add anything, and just brings you to a lower status than the people you're bashing.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
          I keep coming back here despite getting no value out of the experience and having relatively little impact in getting people to actually improve things that need improving, so yes, I apparently like it quite rough indeed. :/
          Don't worry... I like you. And isn't that all that really matters?

          Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
          Why the hell would I try to get people to switch to Linux? I'm not an evangelist. If they find out for themself and/or ask me about it, I'll gladly help them.
          I guess there's a sense that if Linux had a broader user base, more software would be available for the platform. E.g., I kinda still need to hold on to Windows to play some games. So there is a certain side benefit if desktop Linux were to become more mainstream.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            Another example, we had compiz 0.8 written in C. The developer rewritten it for C++. Of course, for a couple of versions it's shit (12.04 being a shitty standout). What was so wrong about keeping it in C and improving it from there? It was 95% ok, but nooooo we have to start again...
            ...You're not a developer, are you (then why the hell are you questioning their design decisions?) Sometimes, the rats nest gets too deep, the spaghetti too entwined, the hair too tangled to really sort everything out, and your project SCREAMS for simplification. This is when a developer cuts his losses, looks hard at the lessons he has learned and starts anew.

            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            Linux could take over a larger marketshare, but the devs jump to do a thing that already worked from scratch, they get all the media attention(ohhh look wayland, I'm cumming!), and it's never good enough for the real market.
            This problem isn't really what is holding Linux back. When KDE 4 rolled around, KDE3 still existed. Gnome2 still exists. Currently well supported software still exists in the Linux world, and that software is often getting bugfixes for a while. Use cases have changed, hardware has advanced, and X has needed this refresh for at least 10 years now.

            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            And when they'll release it we won't see an improvement, in fact most likely we will have problems...and then we will start from scratch once again, this time we'll do it right!
            When I started using KDE4 it was the earliest 4.0 releases. Lets give you a little context: I used 5 or 6 monitors at the time, and KDE4 didn't support TWO X screens, let alone 6, until well into KDE 4.5. I was hanging in there for years, banging on the door, submitting bugs, etc.... it drove me NUTS. But, meanwhile, somewhere else in the world... someone was still using KDE 3 the entire time, and didn't have those problems or the frustration. They happily used KDE 3 beyond its EOL. I bet there are people that STILL use KDE 3 out there.

            You don't have to upgrade. Its a choice, one you make based on educated decisions (hopefully). If you're just going bleeding edge, ALL THE TIME, prepare for the problems. For everyone else, there's LTS distros.
            Last edited by kazetsukai; 08-14-2012, 01:31 PM.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by kazetsukai View Post
              If you're just going bleeding edge, ALL THE TIME, prepare for the problems. For everyone else, there's LTS distros.
              Isn't Ubuntu 12.04 an LTS release?

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                Isn't Ubuntu 12.04 an LTS release?
                There's also 8.04 and 10.04, which are, still supported.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by kazetsukai View Post
                  There's also 8.04 and 10.04, which are, still supported.
                  Yes but the point is someone who says, "Let me try out this Ubuntu stuff" will download 12.04, install it, experience an absolute catastrophe of a disaster, and then scratch Linux off the list for the next 10 years.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                    I am not saying you personally try to get people on linux. But I don't think you are against the idea of linux having a larger marketshare (think more developers involved -> maybe less bugs??). But it's a chicken and egg problem: to have a larger marketshare you need less bugs in the first place and to be more user friendly. So, instead of having a system that is 95% good and throwing it away to start from scratch (tell me how many times has this happened in linux? Everybody starts from scratch and thinks this new design is the shit while the previous ones are shit) like it's happening now with x and wayland, I say fuck wayland just improve x.

                    Another example, we had compiz 0.8 written in C. The developer rewritten it for C++. Of course, for a couple of versions it's shit (12.04 being a shitty standout). What was so wrong about keeping it in C and improving it from there? It was 95% ok, but nooooo we have to start again...and then again..and then again. Linux could take over a larger marketshare, but the devs jump to do a thing that already worked from scratch, they get all the media attention(ohhh look wayland, I'm cumming!), and it's never good enough for the real market. And when they'll release it we won't see an improvement, in fact most likely we will have problems...and then we will start from scratch once again, this time we'll do it right!
                    Have you ever seriously worked on any big project? I don't want to make any assumptions, but you sound like you have no developer experience.

                    Let me give you a real world example: in a lot of cases, when a new house is to be built replacing an old one, the old one isn't restored, it's smashed into the ground.
                    Now why is that? It's for a very simple reason: smashing and starting completely a new is often times WAY cheaper than restoring.
                    (And in software you don't even have to smash the old one, see below)
                    Imagine you have a wood house, but due to circumstances, really need it to be made out of cement instead. That's not something you can
                    just "improve" on the old house, is it?

                    You might think that X and Wayland are very similar simply for the fact that they serve a similar role, but if you made any serious attempt at comprehending them
                    you would soon realize that they are fundamentally different approaches to the problem. Hoegsberg himself is a senior contributor to X (I think),
                    so he must know very well that yet another extension to X won't do the trick.
                    I'd suggest you to head over to wayland's website and read the comparison to X give there, it's pretty insightful.

                    There's two major advantages I see to starting from scratch:
                    1. Obviously, you don't have to worry about cleaning up bad/old code. This frees up a lot of time for other things.
                    2. You leave the old project intact. Did you ever consider all the people heavily relying on X's features and behavior?
                    X itself isn't fundamentally bad, it's still good for many use cases (ie. remote sessions), and as many said already, will continue to live on for a very long time.

                    Oftentimes, people confuse things like in the case with PulseAudio, calling it an "ALSA replacement" when it's really not
                    (It's a proper solution for the problem dmix was a quick hack solution to).

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      Yes but the point is someone who says, "Let me try out this Ubuntu stuff" will download 12.04, install it, experience an absolute catastrophe of a disaster, and then scratch Linux off the list for the next 10 years.
                      You do know that Wayland didn't make the cut for 12.04, right? Not surprising, considering Canonical's (lack of) contributions....

                      Each release, you get the latest stable software stack, and it receives bugfixes until the disto EOLs. So if you download 12.04, you get 12.04. If you download 10.04, you get 10.04. As far as I know, there's no reason for normal users to be recommended 10.04 or 8.04 over 12.04.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X