You skirted the main question. Why is Mir needed? I see no benefits that it brings, only damage to many projects and progress of Linux desktop in general. To all my examples you had nothing to say but "yes, that extra work is needed". But you omitted, because Canonical pushed out Mir for no good reason. Yes, I hold Canonical responsible for causing an unnecessary duplication of effort and rift in the Linux desktop. And arguments like "why Wayland and not Mir" are demagoguery, because Wayland started way before Mir, and a lot of effort was put into and around it. Saying "let's do it all over now" is extremely wasteful. I'd agree with "let's make XYZ", if Wayland was really deficient. But it isn't! Linux desktop moves slowly as it is, and such diversions are making things worse.
So again, no one stopped Canonical from making Unity a Wayland compositor, once they realized, their whole Mir idea was based on mistaken assumptions. That would have avoided all this major mess. But now it's just the question of swallowing pride and admitting, a lot of time was wasted (and for others too). The longer it goes, the harder it becomes (it's painful to throw out a lot of work).
So again, no one stopped Canonical from making Unity a Wayland compositor, once they realized, their whole Mir idea was based on mistaken assumptions. That would have avoided all this major mess. But now it's just the question of swallowing pride and admitting, a lot of time was wasted (and for others too). The longer it goes, the harder it becomes (it's painful to throw out a lot of work).
Comment