Originally posted by TheBlackCat
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Upstream X/Wayland Developers Bash Canonical, Mir
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by garegin View PostI have a feeling that desktop Linux will be slowly dying. The main DEs are severely understaffed. Without quality gnome or kde releases desktop Linux will only be used by fans only. And don't say that xfce or lxde is great, because it isnt
Shuttleworth is just the latest casualty of success. And when his (doomed) play for a piece of the phone market fails, he's going to cut Canonical loose. The Amazon adware/spyware and Canonical's plea for donations makes it pretty clear that Shuttleworth is near the end of his patience. I do miss the old Ubuntu. But I won't miss the atrocity that calls itself by that name today. Good riddance.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostIt would be nice if they treated Mir the same way.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostAnyway, having some level of control over development is part of your business model. It is how you get people to buy your services over those of other companies like SUSE or Oracle. No one would buy services from Redhat if Redhat was not in a position to fix problems when things go wrong.
Control in the sense that you contribute actively to the projects in the ecosystem and collaborate with others to ensure compatibility accross the board. That you have influence over the projects and are able to ensure that the projects get features that you need, but in a way that others benefit from them as well. That's what the GPL ensures: collaboration, without anyone having to worry about someone just taking and not giving back.
And control in the sense that you have to do everything yourself and maintain a closed development process, forking or re-implementing everything. Not contributing back to upstream, instead forking everything and/or making downstream changes that only benefit you.
Which is better?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostAnyway, having some level of control over development is part of your business model. It is how you get people to buy your services over those of other companies like SUSE or Oracle. No one would buy services from Redhat if Redhat was not in a position to fix problems when things go wrong..
In any case, the primary problem with the way Mir was announced is that, the project page made incorrect claims about the alternative which have subsequently been fixed. They could have avoided that problem by stating the real reasons, technical or otherwise. Canonical is free to do whatever they want to but could have handled this much better IMO.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AdamW View PostGood Lord, you really do bend over backwards not to give us credit for anything, don't you? Your standard line is that Red Hat isn't really 'contributing' but trying to 'control' things. When a member of a development community straight up says RH is a valuable contributor, you fall back on saying 'ahh, but if Red Hat didn't exist, maybe things would be even better!' Is it _really_ that hard just to grit your teeth and admit the point?
Anyway, having some level of control over development is part of your business model. It is how you get people to buy your services over those of other companies like SUSE or Oracle. No one would buy services from Redhat if Redhat was not in a position to fix problems when things go wrong.
Originally posted by AdamW View PostThe main problem people had with the decision was that it came associated with a bunch of completely inaccurate criticism of Wayland. Which was unfair in its own right, but more significantly, implied that either i) Canonical was genuinely doing Mir because they completely misunderstood Wayland (giant technical fail) or ii) Canonical was really doing Mir because they wanted to control their own display server technology rather than contribute to an existing one, and the inaccurate criticism of Wayland was a PR smokescreen (giant PR fail, because it was very quickly shot down).
Originally posted by AdamW View PostThey really haven't. Wayland was started by an Xorg developer and enjoys wide support among Xorg developers. 'Xorg' developers are mostly just F/OSS developers who want to work on graphics, and from what I've seen, they all seem to think X is an old design that needs to go, and Wayland is what ought to replace it. I'm not aware of any Xorg lifers yelling DOWN WITH WAYLAND, or anything.Last edited by ryao; 07 March 2013, 12:00 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
As for the "what would you push newbies to in the Linux distro world" question, for me it's probably still Ubuntu (and/or Mint).
....than hope either they really like it/serves their needs or they, like me, try new things and eventually discover the likes of Arch I'm an Arch guy all the way but I'd never recommend it to a new person to Linux obviously, unless they are of a certain mindset.
On the other hand I hear openSUSE gets a pretty good rap lately so perhaps that's another user-friendly alternative.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostThe world is not quite so simple. Any contributions the OSS community have an opportunity cost, including Redhat's. Without the ability to perform a control and experiment with parallel worlds, it is impossible to know what that opportunity cost is. For all we know, there are plenty of other open source companies that do not exist because of Redhat. You cannot make such assertions when you understand that.
Originally posted by ryao View PostI started my own project so that I would not be subject to their design decisions. This is exactly what Canonical has done and I see nothing wrong with it.
Canonical is free to create their own project, of course. No crime in it. It does seem like a disappointment, though, since pretty much every non-Canonical F/OSS graphics dev seems to think Wayland is the way forward, and until now, we actually had agreement pretty much F/OSS ecosystem wide to drive Wayland development. Canonical not being behind that effort any more is a shame. It's not immoral or criminal or a terrible thing to do, but it's a shame. Those five or six or whatever devs Canonical is now paying to develop a display server from scratch (or fork Android's, or whatever it is they're doing, I haven't looked at the code) could've been contributing to Wayland development, to the benefit of all.
Originally posted by ryao View PostThe wayland developers have also done the same with respect to Xorg.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View PostOkay, thanks for the clarification. That still does not really substantiate ryao's attempts to paint that as a bad thing. I mean, would you say that Red Hat is using Wayland to enforce it's will on the free software community?
Originally posted by daniels View PostAnd, while RH don't contribute directly to Wayland, the fact is we'd be screwed without them. They've made an enormous investment over quite a number of years (since long before it was fashionable) in the entire graphics stack.
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostFunny how those rules didn't apply to you when you complained about systemd. How hypocritical can one get, really?Last edited by ryao; 06 March 2013, 09:14 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by daniels View PostAnd, while RH don't contribute directly to Wayland, the fact is we'd be screwed without them. They've made an enormous investment over quite a number of years (since long before it was fashionable) in the entire graphics stack.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: