Originally posted by ElectricPrism
View Post
So yes, freedom to choose is good, and that's why Mir becoming dominant is bad- it will likely only support Unity, therefore wittling the choices down to one for the majority of Linux users, new and otherwise. Of course, you can say to just use something else, and I hope people do if they don't like this direction, but as it stands Ubuntu is still the only distro that seems to be 'made for human beings' (aside from elementary or Mint, of course- both Ubuntu derivatives). You can use Wayland on Ubuntu, obviously, but people tend to avoid the spin-off distros.
Also, your comparison of Mir to something like Kwin is totally off. Mir is more like an X11 replacement (a display server, as you say). Of course, under Wayland compositors like Kwin and Mutter take more of the responsibilities a display server has traditionally had, but that doesn't make it similar in any way to Mir. The architecture is quite different, and Kwin and Mutter are not becoming display servers, nor were they ever.
I think it's important not to tout freedom of choice or bring up natural selection in something so context sensitive as desktop software. Regardless of whether Canonical says they're trying to provide users more options, their actions have been effectively removing flexibility and choice for a long time. For the most part, it's harmless, but Mir is a much more fundamental proposition, and can do much harm if the social situation isn't handled delicately. Suffice it to say that Canonical doesn't care about being delicate, but they are very serious about being dismissive of those who are worried about what they're doing.
I'm still not incredibly worried, but I think we shouldn't fool ourselves into assuming Ubuntu and Canonical can only do good for the community. The lack of nuance in these discussions suggests that Ubuntu users are simply trying to convince themselves that everything is okay, since they've invested so much.
Comment