Originally posted by BO$$
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Running Wayland: It Works, But A Lot Of Work Remains
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ancurio View Posthow the hell am I supposed to explain that to you over and over again?
1) Click user's name.
2) Click Add to Ignore List on the left-hand pane.
3) Click confirmation button.
4) Go use your new found free time to nail your better half.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BO$$ View PostIn fact you sound like you have no experience : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...000000069.html
Never rewrite from scratch my friend...never. All that code you consider crap actually has a lot of bugfixes, the new code has a new array of problems and most likely will also repeat some bugs from the past....
The article talks about rewriting the SAME software from scratch, Wayland is a very DIFFERENT thing altogether.
Bugfixes in Xorg don't apply to Wayland because they are fundamentally different architectures..
how the hell am I supposed to explain that to you over and over again?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BO$$ View PostNever rewrite from scratch my friend...never. All that code you consider crap actually has a lot of bugfixes, the new code has a new array of problems and most likely will also repeat some bugs from the past....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BO$$ View PostI 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!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostYes 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostYes 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BO$$ View PostI 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!
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).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostThere's also 8.04 and 10.04, which are, still supported.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostIsn't Ubuntu 12.04 an LTS release?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: