Originally posted by finalzone
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostIt is not the first Canonical acted that way, Unity was originally a copy of early Gnome Shell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostI don't see your point. The post you quote explicitly states Canonical are *the only ones* who can sublicense. Comparing with dual or even triple licensing is mixing apples and oranges: in those cases, you still have the same rights than everyone else, and in Canonical's they have *more* rights than everyone else. And this extra rights come with extra control.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Delgarde View PostNot really... the other way around, if anything. In terms of design, Unity evolved from Ubuntu's netbook edition - a bunch of Gnome 2 hacks to optimise things for a small screen, etc - which was then subsumed into the regular desktop, with stuff like the modal view for application launch and search and stuff. And if you look at early Shell designs, there's actually less similarity than later on - e.g Shell had a more complex sidebar, which was then replaced with a dock similar to that of Unity. Personally, I think Shell did it better (which is why I now use Fedora rather than Ubuntu), but they *did* copy a lot of ideas from what Unity had already done.
Canonical starts their Unity idea in November 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Shell
GNOME Shell became available for the first time in August 2009.
Comment
-
If Canonical runs into bugs that aren't fixable because they're hooking into binary blob drivers from Android, things could go downhill for them very fast. Whereas Wayland would be in a much better position to get similar problems fixed in Mesa, although as has been noted before, fixing bugs in Mesa related to Wayland isn't a cakewalk either.Last edited by Sidicas; 30 June 2013, 10:46 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sidicas View PostAssuming that it doesn't expose bugs in the Android drivers they plan to be using, in *ANY* of the devices they plan to target, you're right.. If it does expose bugs, then they're SOL because the hardware manufs. aren't on the Mir boat, probably won't be anytime soon, and won't care to fix driver bugs related to Mir since they're focused on Android.
If Canonical runs into bugs that aren't fixable because they're hooking into binary blob drivers from Android, things could go downhill for them very fast. Whereas Wayland would be in a much better position to get similar problems fixed in Mesa, although as has been noted before, fixing bugs in Mesa related to Wayland isn't a cakewalk either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View Posthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%...environment%29
Canonical starts their Unity idea in November 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Shell
GNOME Shell became available for the first time in August 2009.
....and in 2010 Canonical's CEO gave a long speech about how Unity was built from everything they learned from Ubuntu Netbook Remix which dates back before 2008.. Going on about how it all culminates into the initial design of Unity and how netbook manufacturers like Asus have a great interest in using Ubuntu's Netbook Remix for the future netbook EeePC sales.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sidicas View PostUgh, Not this again..
....and in 2010 Canonical's CEO gave a long speech about how Unity was built from everything they learned from Ubuntu Netbook Remix which dates back before 2008.. Going on about how it all culminates into the initial design of Unity and how netbook manufacturers like Asus have a great interest in using Ubuntu's Netbook Remix for the future netbook EeePC sales.
Comment
-
how can standalone Xorg be better for any case than Xorg+Wayland
The claims of the article that this is an apples2apples comparison of what the Xmir configuration is would appear to be inaccurate. The test results linked to in this article seem to indicate that XWayland (Xorg+Wayland) are actually better in 5 out of 9 cases vs standalone Xorg. It does not seem reasonable that Xorg would be slower than Xorg+"anything".
Xmir is Xorg+mir as a system compositor. I am tempted to believe as one other poster has pointed out that in these instance Xorg is not involved, and rather what is being measured is a native Wayland rendering.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kgunn View PostThe claims of the article that this is an apples2apples comparison of what the Xmir configuration is would appear to be inaccurate. The test results linked to in this article seem to indicate that XWayland (Xorg+Wayland) are actually better in 5 out of 9 cases vs standalone Xorg. It does not seem reasonable that Xorg would be slower than Xorg+"anything".
Xmir is Xorg+mir as a system compositor. I am tempted to believe as one other poster has pointed out that in these instance Xorg is not involved, and rather what is being measured is a native Wayland rendering.
Comment
Comment