Tweet
Originally posted by scionicspectre
View Post
-
"Was", rather than "is". I was a happy Ubuntu user for quite a while, from the first few releases up to a couple of years ago. That's about the point where it ceased to be a decent user experience, with a decline in usability that saw me ditch them... -
This is what I don't understand.
Canonical devs: "We're tossing away all the work done by the community and developing our own display server because we want to have more control and to not be tied to a protocol set by others. We're making a display server that is developed for Unity, with Unity's and Ubuntu's needs as a priority. Oh, and we expect that it will become immensely popular and everyone else will adopt it."
Something there doesn't add up. It's like saying, "I developed this engine for my 5-wheeled motorbike that runs on fish oil, I expect it to be hugely popular for use in all gasoline-powered cars."Comment
-
the fragmentation argument is understandable, and apt in the context of linux distributions, but what if the point was Ubuntu not being just one out of the many linux distributions out there, anymore, but rather an operating system platform on its own?Originally posted by dee. View Post
and thats what makes linux a "unix" like several others (although more open / customizeable /.. ), more than other factors, platform-wise..Even with all the variation in Linux distributions, developers have always been able to count on a common display server, X, and assume it to be used on any distro.
no benefit for the end user or the Wayland community, maybeIn fact, if anything is a political move, it's Mir. It provides no benefit whatsoever compared to Wayland.
no benefit at all, not really - in fact going with TDD/agile on a new codebase has allowed them to have an integrated shell + compositor in a "workable" state after 15 months or so, compared to the 5 years and counting since the inception of the wayland project
besides, as fixated as canonical seems to be with C++ now, they would hardly ever contribute to a (C based) project such as wayland - while mir fits in the picture of progressively building a new (at least as far as code is concerned) and distinct platform one piece at a time
more than debunked it seems to me that they do each hold ground, at the same time not being enough of a justification for the fragmentation the project introduce... but now again, what if that "fragmentation" (that someone may call "product differentation" or "added value") ie heading towards the creation of an indipendent ubuntu platform (like has happened for android) was the main goal and benefit in itself?Any claimed benefits against Wayland have been debunked.Comment
-
but the market may notice it, after all...Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
apparently, there are people who are *waiting* for smartphones that would let them tinker as in android's early days, or that would support all the apps and games android does, but without Google's attached strings wrt privacy...Comment
-
Because it's called Ubuntu, and in the public, Linux = Ubuntu. Changing that conception, without eliminating the Ubuntu name, is very hard. Now if they changed their name to, say, "A Bun Too", few people would have a problem with it. New people who want to try out Linux would no longer default to Ubuntu, but try some of the usual Linux distributions (Mageia, openSUSE, Fedora). And the A Bun Too platform would be left alone. Mostly, at least, because the second problem of it is Ubuntu's userbase ? if all of Ubuntu's users moved to A Bun Too, they would cease to be a part of Linux. Which then means that people like game developers would then rather target A Bun Too instead of Linux...Originally posted by silix View PostComment
-
That is not the stated goal of Ubuntu according to Canonical itself. Canonical still maintains that it intends to be a Linux distribution. And even if your supposition is correct, that'd be a horrible goal, and harmful to Linux as a whole. If Canonical were to succeed in gaining a large market share, other Linux distributions wouldn't benefit anything from the success of Ubuntu, they would all be incompatible and would remain in niche use, or worse, die out entirely due to not being able to offer the same level of software and hardware support as Ubuntu.Originally posted by silix View Post
However, Canonical would never be able to pull off a plan like that, due to the simple reason that 99% of Ubuntu depends on open source code developed by others. Ubuntu cannot exist in a vacuum: Without a healthy ecosystem of Linux distributions and developers around it, Ubuntu would also die. Canonical does not have the resources or manpower to maintain all the code they need for a complete OS platform. They barely have enough to develop their own solutions as it is. Such a plan would be like biting the hand that feeds you.
No it's not. Unix is something different, being a Unixlike OS is not dependent on the display server. Unix can be without any graphical display system at all. Mac OS is also a Unixlike OS.and thats what makes linux a "unix" like several others (although more open / customizeable /.. ), more than other factors, platform-wise..
You don't seem to be in full grasp of all the facts.no benefit for the end user or the Wayland community, maybe
no benefit at all, not really - in fact going with TDD/agile on a new codebase has allowed them to have an integrated shell + compositor in a "workable" state after 15 months or so, compared to the 5 years and counting since the inception of the wayland project
Wayland has taken several years because Wayland devs have been doing all the hard, boring groundwork and plumbing in all of the rest of the graphics stack that may not produce flashy demos, but nevertheless was necessary to even make it possible to create a modern display protocol.
After all this groundwork was done, which was the hardest, longest part of Wayland development, Mir piggybacked on that work and copied a lot of parts done by others (some they even forked directly, such as Xwayland -> Xmir). Without all the work done by Wayland developers, Mir wouldn't even be possible, because Canonical didn't and doesn't have the knowhow, experience or ability to do that kind of work. So now they can appear (at least to the ignorant) as if they had developed Mir much faster than Wayland, when in truth they merely took advantage of all the work done before them.
Meanwhile, after Mir was started, Wayland development also shifted from the boring groundwork phase to the final phase of implementing the rest of the protocol, compositors and toolkit support. So now Wayland is advancing much faster than Mir, which predictably seems to have ran into problems.
Also, Wayland is a protocol, so there's nothing stopping Canonical from implementing their own Wayland compositor, with integrated shell if they want. In fact GNOME is doing something very much like that - GNOME Shell is being converted into a Wayland compositor. All Wayland provides is a library that contains implementations of the Wayland protocol, a way for compositors, clients and hardware to speak the same language.
Canonical could easily have created their own Wayland compositor and maintained control of its entire codebase, they could have licensed it in any way they wanted, written it in any language and development method they wanted. So these reasons for "needing to create Mir" are entirely false.
That doesn't make any sense. Like I said, Wayland is a protocol, there's nothing stopping anyone from writing Wayland compositors in C++. And if Canonical had some kind of ideological reason not to contribute to projects written in C - that'd be idiotic. There's plenty of parts in core Ubuntu that are written in C - the kernel for one. That doesn't stop Canonical from using them, and even patching them when necessary.besides, as fixated as canonical seems to be with C++ now, they would hardly ever contribute to a (C based) project such as wayland - while mir fits in the picture of progressively building a new (at least as far as code is concerned) and distinct platform one piece at a time
Again, that would be pointless, stupid, infeasible and harmful to everyone involved.more than debunked it seems to me that they do each hold ground, at the same time not being enough of a justification for the fragmentation the project introduce... but now again, what if that "fragmentation" (that someone may call "product differentation" or "added value") ie heading towards the creation of an indipendent ubuntu platform (like has happened for android) was the main goal and benefit in itself?Comment
-
Like I said... the tech sector, and a small part of it at that. The proportion of the market that cares about such things is tiny... you or I might like the idea of tinkering with their phone's OS, but most smartphone buyers are at the level of "the new Galaxy is cool", or "all my friends have iPhones". Those people have never heard of Canonical or Ubuntu, and are never going to buy a phone from anyone but the big manufacturers.Originally posted by silix View Post
It's the same issue with FirefoxOS... great project, but never going to be more than a distant runner-up. And Firefox has much better brand recognition than Ubuntu does...Comment
-
Mark Shuttleworth is a huge pile of shit to attack the foss community like this he's a even bigger pile of shit them Mir isOriginally posted by phoronix View PostComment
-
Because fragmentation...
People who submit commits to Mir could possibly submit them to Wayland. Plain and simple.Originally posted by mike4 View Post
Mir uses license that, as far as I understand doesn't allow forking. Meaning, Mir is owned by Ubuntu and not you. So why support THEM instead of community?
And frankly, there is nothing good about DEB VS RPM.Comment
Comment