Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Joined The Khronos Group To Help Mir/Wayland Drivers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    * actually brought some real advantage with Mir
    A fully tested dislay server i a huge advantage.
    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    * made Mir follow the standard
    There is no standard to follow so that may be hard...
    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    * add a wayland-mir translation layer to enable wayland apps to run on Mir or vice versa
    Well they have, or rather they made the already existing cross platform transition layers work with Mir
    as well (Qt and GTK in the works, I expect others may come in a later future).
    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    * updated existing apps and desktop environments to support Mir as well.
    They don't have to as the toolkits gets Mir support.
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    Given the CA
    Mir doesn't require CA
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    the poor API promise
    Originally posted by Canonical
    Also note this means there are projects "outside the silo" that depend on MIRCLIENT_ABI 8 by direct linkage to "libmirclient.so.8". Be very wary if you ever want to change the client ABI from now on...
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    the fact they said MIR wasn't made to be implemented by other
    They said Unity is ther target, they wont add features that Unity doesn't require (however community patches
    are welcome). However Unity isn't that special so if it works for Unity it probably works for other DEs as well.
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    well, no, everyone is not welcome to use it.
    Everyone are welcome to use it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
      A fully tested dislay server i a huge advantage.
      To the users of the display server: Unity.


      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
      Well they have, or rather they made the already existing cross platform transition layers work with Mir
      as well (Qt and GTK in the works, I expect others may come in a later future).
      If, and only if there is no direct dependency on X11 or Wayland in the app. There are Qt and GTK+ apps which have runtime dependencies on X11 and need to be ported to Wayland or Mir. The port has to be done in a way, that it's figured out at run-time which toolkit backend is used (originally, it was only checked if the app is being compiled for Unix and thus the X11-codepath was used). It might not be possible to code the app completely independent of the tool-kit backend, thus the app has to be patched to run on Mir.

      Comment


      • #33
        All the people who like to use the magic word "toolkit", please read this. The tl:dr version of it is, the toolkit does not fully abstract away the underlying windowing system. So even individual app developers need to care about display servers. Merely giving the app a quick run already noticeably increases the maintenance and QA burden, especially when you're on a system that does not provide the other display server. Then there's window managers, they need to interact with the display server at a lower level than just the toolkit, the magic word doesn't work on them. We also have graphics driver developers, won't work for them either (the other magic word here, EGL, also doesn't work).

        Basically, you seem to be completely unaware of how much a disruption a new display server is. If I write TextEditorNIH today, it won't have any impact on Gedit developers, Kate developers, etc. But a new display server affects graphics driver devs, toolkit devs, window manager devs, even individual app devs. That's a lot. And that's why it was important for everyone to agree to do this disruption once and go in the same direction - Wayland. Even Canonical was on board at first. Then they weren't anymore. That's why Mir in particular, and Canonical in general, receive so much flak. And I must say, it is very much deserved flak.

        So please, do not think everything is ok by using some magic words and saying "everyone is welcome to use". For example, the current Compiz-based Unity that works on X isn't packaged for any distro that's not an Ubuntu derivative. This is because Unity is quite disruptive, requiring patches to other components that the distro ships, and distro devs do not want to take on the burden of integrating those patches and then having to follow Ubuntu repositories for updates to them. Trying to brush all this away with "everyone is welcome to use" simply does not work in reality. Neither does saying "toolkit".

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oleid View Post
          To the users of the display server: Unity.
          Eeeh, yeah, adventages of a program usually just applies to the users of that program.

          Originally posted by oleid View Post
          If, and only if there is no direct dependency on X11 or Wayland in the app. There are Qt and GTK+ apps which have runtime dependencies on X11 and need to be ported to Wayland or Mir. The port has to be done in a way, that it's figured out at run-time which toolkit backend is used (originally, it was only checked if the app is being compiled for Unix and thus the X11-codepath was used). It might not be possible to code the app completely independent of the tool-kit backend, thus the app has to be patched to run on Mir.
          If there are direct dependacies on any program it only works in that program, is that news to you?

          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          please read this.
          Bla, bla, bla. Bugs in QT, bla. bla bla more bugs in QT.

          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          Merely giving the app a quick run already noticeably increases the maintenance and QA burden
          Automated testing, we web developers have don that for ages...

          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          Then there's window managers, they need to interact with the display server at a lower level than just the toolkit
          Well, yeah, window managers are bound to display servers, heck in Wayland they even need to integrate their own display server.
          So?

          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          We also have graphics driver developers, won't work for them either
          You didn't read the news you commented?

          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          For example, the current Compiz-based Unity that works on X isn't packaged for any distro that's not an Ubuntu derivative.
          So Arch is a Ubuntu derivative? Cool!

          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          This is because Unity is quite disruptive, requiring patches to other components that the distro ships, and distro devs do not want to take on the burden of integrating those patches and then having to follow Ubuntu repositories for updates to them.
          That's why they are creating a display server for Unity.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Pajn View Post
            Bla, bla, bla. Bugs in QT, bla. bla bla more bugs in QT.
            Ah, yes, hand-waving.

            Originally posted by Pajn View Post
            Automated testing, we web developers have don that for ages...
            More magic words.

            Originally posted by Pajn View Post
            So Arch is a Ubuntu derivative? Cool!
            I'm aware there's a third party Arch repo that has Unity. Keyword "third party". Which only confirms what I said.

            Originally posted by Pajn View Post
            That's why they are creating a display server for Unity.
            This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

            With posts like that, all you're doing is confirming all the reasons Canonical is receiving flak, not refuting them.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gusar View Post
              I'm aware there's a third party Arch repo that has Unity. Keyword "third party". Which only confirms what I said.
              The heck?! your expecting them (canonical) to por unity for you? lmao
              you want it port it yourself... they gave the source code so every word that means its closed its a lie, basicly if you want it move your butt and earn your money yourself...
              now lets stop it this is way off topic.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Pajn View Post

                Mir doesn't require CA
                Canonical disagrees with you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheSoulz View Post
                  The heck?! your expecting them (canonical) to por unity for you? lmao
                  Hello, straw man! What's interesting about what your wrote though is that Unity needs to be "ported". Most software does not need to be ported, just packaged. That's why there's a Fedora Mate Spin, but no Fedora Unity Spin, for example. Mate could be packaged without disruption to other packages, Unity can't be.

                  Originally posted by TheSoulz View Post
                  you want it port it yourself...
                  Well, yeah, the Arch users who wanted it, did just that. But that does not address the issue that Unity is disruptive and therefore distro devs don't want to burden themselves with it.

                  Originally posted by TheSoulz View Post
                  so every word that means its closed its a lie
                  And another straw man! No one ever said Canonical's stuff is closed. What we are saying is that it's disruptive, especially Mir. Because it is. The implication "they provide the source so everything is fine" is too simplistic, like the magic words and the hand-waving, it does not address the issues in any way.

                  I can only say to you what I said to Pajn: With posts like that, all you're doing is confirming all the reasons Canonical is receiving flak, not refuting them.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                    Hello, straw man! What's interesting about what your wrote though is that Unity needs to be "ported". Most software does not need to be ported, just packaged. That's why there's a Fedora Mate Spin, but no Fedora Unity Spin, for example. Mate could be packaged without disruption to other packages, Unity can't be.

                    Well, yeah, the Arch users who wanted it, did just that. But that does not address the issue that Unity is disruptive and therefore distro devs don't want to burden themselves with it.

                    And another straw man! No one ever said Canonical's stuff is closed. What we are saying is that it's disruptive, especially Mir. Because it is. The implication "they provide the source so everything is fine" is too simplistic, like the magic words and the hand-waving, it does not address the issues in any way.

                    I can only say to you what I said to Pajn: With posts like that, all you're doing is confirming all the reasons Canonical is receiving flak, not refuting them.
                    OFF TOPIC:
                    See arch did it, means it can be done.
                    Like i said they wont make it easy BUT they wont make it harder either.
                    They simply do not care, you have the source if you truly want it you can do it

                    And yes if they provide the source code im "fine" with it, thats all i care about.
                    Its simply bussiness mate, they cant afford to care about what the other distros are going to do with it, they're making it for themselfs.
                    Although it might even be in theyr insterst to make MIR simple to implement on other distros, more people using it means more support, are there REAL proof that MIR is hard or HARDER then wayland to implement? i would like to see that.

                    Even if it is i would still CHOOSE MIR everytime since like i said many times before i have more faith on MIR then wayland, ubuntu hasnt dissapointed me yet so...

                    BTW no a fanboy will stwich in a hearthbeet to anything better when i exists
                    Like when i play real games i choose windows since the linux drivers are better but are still a mess.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
                      So Arch is a Ubuntu derivative? Cool!
                      It is not in the official Arch repos anymore.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X