Lots Of Ubuntu Mir Changes Expected Next Week

[jrch2k8]

Once again: Ubuntu is THE BEST and MOST USED Linux distro. If Ubuntu uses Mir then Linux uses Mir. It doesn't matter what the others do since the others don't exist. They can use only the 80x25 terminal for all the world cares. Ubuntu IS Linux. Get this in your head. What they do is what Linux does. They choose Mir, Linux chooses Mir. That's how it goes when you're number one. The fact that the rest choose Wayland means that everybody wants to go into oblivion and never be heard from again. Ubuntu moves on and leaves the losers to rot in the sun. In fact we shouldn't call Linux linux since that is only the kernel. We should call it Ubuntu. Linux is what we called it back in the 90's. Now, after a glorious rebranding from the masters at Canonical we call it Ubuntu. There is only Windows, OS X and Ubuntu. Learn to accept reality.

you should leave your cave more often, you seem to need some oxygen and sunlight.

with less that 1% of global market share ubuntu enters in the range of statistical error and Valve don't need ubuntu as much ubuntu neeed Valve[after all steam runs fine in any other linux distro], Valve just need 1 game exclusive to linux for some weeks and a side note saying we recomend this X non ubuntu distro[or simply spin Valve linux distro based on whatever they want] and those ubuntu numbers will hit ground very very fast and if ubuntu phone fails to grab marketshare you can be sure Mark will call the day and turn lights off, after all canonical is only good to drain money from his pocket.

wayland will be the Linux successor to X, Mir will be Ubuntu OS sucessor of X is that plain and simple, nobody in the Linux FOSS world give a rat ass about marketshare beyond getting drivers manufacturers on board and for that we have RedHat that actually make money and is FOSS compliant and that my troll uneducated teen friend won't change no matter how much you whine.

in the real world you need at least 10% rocksolid global OEM market to claim is competing with OSx or Windows and linux need more work to reach that state[Mir/Wayland is not enough there are bigger showstoppers to work with first] and to reach OEM in real world you need big money muscle and a proven support network, until then every linux users is invisible because as long as anyone cares to look that OEM PC selled an Win8 license not an arch or ubuntu[except for small OEMs and failed attempts from Dell]

[jayrulez]

Maybe Mir gets mocked because Canonical did a 180 on their Wayland support a year before Wayland is set to take the distro world by storm. Wayland is built to truly replace X, we still don't know why Mir is built. GPLv3 and CLA seem to point to control, but that wasn't even necessary, as Wayland is MIT licensed and can be used as FOSS or relicensed proprietary. So far Mir, tecnically, seems to have progressed to a stage where it is a mere shim underneath a running X.org and somewhere in the future, one DE (Unity) is set to run on Mir natively. Practically all other non-niche desktop projects have taken up Wayland support as an important to do and the major ones already have initial Wayland compositor support.

Mir is folly, because Canonical is too small (in size and finance) to develop and maintain a well designed display server architecture and the rest of the Linux community already has a high quality display server design in Wayland, so no serious outside development nor uptake for Mir will materialise.

Linux Desktop itself is a niche.

[LinuxGamer]

Yes, C++ works well in low level systems.

really

"On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote:
>
> When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd:
> 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don't talk about portability,
> it's BS.

*YOU* are full of bullshit.

C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.

So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

But I'm sure you'd like it more than git.

Linus"

[jrch2k8]

really

"On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote:
>
> When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd:
> 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don't talk about portability,
> it's BS.

*YOU* are full of bullshit.

C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.

So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

But I'm sure you'd like it more than git.

Linus"

well that is a bit exagerated, C/C++ are both great languages but as always if don't analyze your algortihm previously and code on the run with any language you will end up with a mess

[jrch2k8]

true STL/boost can be messy if used wrong but the same can be said of structs, for example many developers assume structs are general data containers or good to arrange variable and make the code more readable but in true structs are types and as all types it needs to be aligned and padded to a base 2 logarithms or you will force the compiler to go through hell padding/rearrenging or end with very ugly ASM output.

bitsets require surgical care too, Unions should not be overused, cache operations types have to be well aligned, malloc/free need to be careful or properly handled automatically

so as i say as long your algorithm is clear and well thought you can produce very nice code if you are not careful any language can be a mess

[LinuxGamer]

true STL/boost can be messy if used wrong but the same can be said of structs, for example many developers assume structs are general data containers or good to arrange variable and make the code more readable but in true structs are types and as all types it needs to be aligned and padded to a base 2 logarithms or you will force the compiler to go through hell padding/rearrenging or end with very ugly ASM output.

bitsets require surgical care too, Unions should not be overused, cache operations types have to be well aligned, malloc/free need to be careful or properly handled automatically

so as i say as long your algorithm is clear and well thought you can produce very nice code if you are not careful any language can be a mess

I think C++ is Awesome for any thing like Game Engine's App's Etc but on a lower level system like the Kernel Wayland Etc i think C will be best for them cases

[erendorn]

really

"BLA BLA BLA

Linus"

Linus has brought many incredibly good stuff to this word, but this post is not one of them.

Basically, his arguments are:
- It is a mean to have better programmers. That reminds me of some soldiers complaining about new shoes because they made walking too easy, and the army was not only for tough guy anymore (tough guy == a guy that can suffer by walking in crappy shoes). This is incredibly bad reasoning.
- You can create bad constructs with C++. That's completely true. But I don't know a single language that prevents that, and C certainly doesn't
- the C++ standard library is less portable than than the C library. That one is actually true, you may have issues targeting pre-2000 8bit computers with C++.

There are actual pros and cons for C and C++, but this rant has none of them.

[jayrulez]

really

"On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote:
>
> When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd:
> 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don't talk about portability,
> it's BS.

*YOU* are full of bullshit.

C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.

So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

But I'm sure you'd like it more than git.

Linus"

Are you an idiot?

Why are you quoting Linus' opinion here? Do you take his words as some form of gospel or ultimate truth?

Let me oblige you for a bit.

C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

The user of the language has nothing to do with the quality of the implementation. Horrible c++ code bases does not mean that the language is inherently bad. It just means that the developer is bad. The same can be said of any laguage. There are a lot of awful C code bases out there also. Does that make C horrible? (Note: C is a horribl language itself by today's standards. The only good things about C are performance, portability? and the barrage of of useful existing codbases).

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.

Just: WTF?

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

Inexperience and lack of knowledge leads to really really bad design choices. This can happen with any language and is not inherent with C++.
There are many badly designed C libraries today. Idiomatic C++ code bases are even easier to refactor than idiomatic C code bases when one realize that there are design flaws.

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it's not even funny)

Again, not inherent to C++.

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

See above.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.

Efficient system-level and portable C++ code: https://github.com/IntelLabs/NOVA
It is not limited to the C subset of C++. Nobody screwed it.

So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

Linus likes C, that is the fundamental reason for creating git with C. Any other rationalization came after the fact.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

Now that is just condescending.


Linus' inability to effectively use C++ does not make C++ bad. It just makes Linus bad at C++.

Just a suggestion: If you do not know enough about a topic, then do not try to speak about it like some kind of authority. It just makes you look like a tool and an idiot to the rest of the readers.

Regards.

[erendorn]

I think C++ is Awesome for any thing like Game Engine's App's Etc but on a lower level system like the Kernel Wayland Etc i think C will be best for them cases

The kernel manages its own memory. It is an incredible headache in a kernel code if your compiler does too many things automatically between your source code and the object code, which a C++ compiler does. Most kernels, including windows ones, are in C for that reason.

Wayland is nowhere near that low (unless I am mistaken, everything happen in user space).

[jayrulez]

I think C++ is Awesome for any thing like Game Engine's App's Etc but on a lower level system like the Kernel Wayland Etc i think C will be best for them cases

It is your lack of knowledge about that topic that leads to that conclusion. The year is 2013, not a point in the 90s.