Originally posted by ninez
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir
Collapse
X
-
Oehm
(although most of the blame and rejections don't come from Canonical).
Licensing is one of the main concerns regarding MIR. So in this case, Canonical actually deserves the blame
Comment
-
Originally posted by przemoli View PostThat is naive point of view.
How many FLOSS projects do you participate in?
Its NORM that any company who wish to build something ONTOP of given project, may at some point join in on development on supporting projects. That what Canonical is doing here. JOINING Mesa developemtn effort. In order to further their development of Mir.
There is nowhere here any message about abandoning any patches.
And before you replay more. Mesa code repo is OPEN.
Go find any code Canonical added, and then orphaned (but still relied on it).
Comment
-
Originally posted by ninez View Postyou are trying to twist history to make it seem as though the community caused all of these issues, when in reality ~ you could not be further from the truth...
So when Debian was forked and Ubuntu was created and growing in popularity, considering and treating them as a "hostile fork" - would that lead to an increase or a decrease of fragmentation? As I said, all this is actually Canonicals fault (or at least the most of it), but the Linux Community did pretty much everything possible, to make it even worse - they could do so very well and still maintain the moral lead, but did that help? Does it now? Will it ever?
The direction things are going have 2 possible outputs from my point of view:
1) Canonical will be successful, but be fragmented away from the rest of the Linux world.
2) Canonical will fail and Linux (for endusers) will continue to be niche, thus endusers will still be forced to rely on MS or Apple.
I consider both of these possibilities as terrible, but that's where we're heading towards right now.
Originally posted by Linuxhippy View PostSo in this case, Canonical actually deserves the blameLast edited by alexThunder; 20 July 2013, 10:51 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostThe direction things are going have 2 possible outputs from my point of view:
1) Canonical will be successful, but be fragmented away from the rest of the Linux world.
2) Canonical will fail and Linux (for endusers) will continue to be niche, thus endusers will still be forced to rely on MS or Apple.
I consider both of these possibilities as terrible, but that's where we're heading towards right now, don't we?
3) Canonical changes it's mind and supports Wayland, but that is probably unlikely.
or maybe
4) Canonical will fail, but Linux will still grow because of Steambox and stuff.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maxjen View PostThe best solution would be
3) Canonical changes it's mind and supports Wayland, but that is probably unlikely.
or maybe
Originally posted by Maxjen View Post4) Canonical will fail, but Linux will still grow because of Steambox and stuff.
If suddenly another company/community/whatever comes up, (succesfully) doing the same as Canonical, but in a Linux Community-friendly way, I'd be all in for that :|
Originally posted by LinuxGamer View PostApple and Microsoft do more OpenSource Development then CanonicalLast edited by alexThunder; 20 July 2013, 11:05 AM.
Comment
-
I don't see Ubuntu as an hostile fork. That's stupidity from the community.
If people already in charge of a distro does not share your vision of how a usable and easier for the user a distro should be, then you can only do a fork.
Speaking of Wayland vs. Mir, I do not like very much what they're doing. They could have made a fork of Wayland like they did with Ubuntu and Debian (which to a large degree their packages are identical and all the source code from Canonical is available) and add or modify whatever they wanted and just try to keep the patches up to date if it's possible, in case Wayland's source code changed continuously and broke every time and recompile, well, it would be of course much more cumbersome.
Comment
-
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostI'm sorry if I couldn't be more clear about what I'm thinking. I actually tried to say the opposite. Canonical started pretty much all of this, it's their fault, that we now have a Canonical vs. Linux Community - situation. Really, I didn't intend to twist that and I'm sorry if that's how my post was perceived. And what you said about the history is not different from what I know about it (again, sorry if I expressed myself somewhat blurry).
So when Debian was forked and Ubuntu was created and growing in popularity, considering and treating them as a "hostile fork" - would that lead to an increase or a decrease of fragmentation? As I said, all this is actually Canonicals fault (or at least the most of it), but the Linux Community did pretty much everything possible, to make it even worse - they could do so very well and still maintain the moral lead, but did that help? Does it now? Will it ever?
The direction things are going have 2 possible outputs from my point of view:
1) Canonical will be successful, but be fragmented away from the rest of the Linux world.
2) Canonical will fail and Linux (for endusers) will continue to be niche, thus endusers will still be forced to rely on MS or Apple.
I consider both of these possibilities as terrible, but that's where we're heading towards right now.
They (probably) deserve all of it.
do you work for Canonical Ubuntu is one of the most lame Linux's for the endusers? you want Tumbleweed or Arch Linux for End Users
Comment
Comment