Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mir 0.26.3 Released

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

  • Tiger_Coder
    replied
    Last time I heard about Mir maintenance, Canonical has some IOT solutions and/or support contract where they are using Mir to provide a single window display and things like that. A single window with preconfigured display. So they will maintain mir for those cases. I guess all the non necessary Desktop bits of Mir will be deprecated. But for a single display with fix gpu, if anyone wants a Canonical's solution, Mir could still be their solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by bregma View Post

    Well, you could consider that "IoT device" includes your in-car infotainment console (pretty useless without a display), medical devices of all kinds (howsabout a CAT scan with no picture of your brain?), and the smart mirror in your bathroom that displays the news and weather while you shave. What are you imagining an IoT device to be?
    You are on your back inside the machine, you don't normally even get to see the display, which exists but is in another room and attached to regular PC workstation (which was running windows last time I got CT scanned some months a go).
    And I would rather ask for MRI brain scan than CT.. CT means bunch of radiation for your body because it's literally 3D X-ray. Better if you never have to have dealings with that machine, it's usually being used for cancer patients. Simple broken bones are visible well enough on traditional x-ray and dosage would be far milder.
    Last edited by aht0; 17 June 2017, 08:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pajn
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
    But why not Wayland? I mean: not to start a flamewar again or anything, but if Canonical is already switching to Wayland for desktop cases, then why not for IoT cases as well? What does Mir better than Wayland when it comes to IoT?
    A fully integrated working platform. Yes really.
    Wayland is a protocol so you'll need a compositor. Here you can basically choose between libweston and qtwayland for IoT.
    These are just libraries however so you'll have to create at least a basic wrapper. And then you'll need input. So now you'll
    need to take libinput and integrate it in your wrapper. And then there's display configuration. In IoT that's usually pretty easy
    though so you can probably hardcode it into your wrapper. Then you'll need a basic shell... Sure there's libraries for that too
    but I think that you are getting the idea here.

    Mir is a displayserver so you directly have all that set up an working from the get go.

    If you are creating something that only display a single window or only have basic window management like a Tesla IVI the
    setup of a Wayland stack only costs time without giving you any benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by bregma View Post
    My guess is that no company is going to choose a ghost entity like "Wayland" (which is a protocol, a text file containing some technical definitions) over a registered corporation as the supplier of a critical piece of infrastructure for their product.
    No company is going to choose a ghost entity like Canonical (which is a tiny company not even profitable since decades) over something more established and with a track record and market penetration like for example Qt (that has a Wayland compositor among other things).

    Still taking the big assumption that such devices actually need a compositor at all. The compositor is needed if they have more than one GUI application. For most such devices their own GUI is the only application they will ever run.

    Who will the lawyers go after when the controls on the radiation therapy device cease to function while delivering a critical dose if it's running a Wayland?
    Safety-critical devices (or even most industrial automation systems) don't work like that, you are pushing this too far.
    Safety-critical stuff usually has the control system or smart touch panel wired to a certified (headless and quite dumb) device that actually controls the machine or has such hardware installed parallel and checking the main system's operation constantly, if the touch screen thing or the industrial PC fails hard, it is not going to cause any harm as the fault will be detected by the separate safety system that (if needed) will trigger an emergency stop by acting on the machine directly.

    And if the device maker isn't implementing something like this, then it's their own problem when shit hits the fan and someone finds out they obviously didn't comply to safety specifications.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drago
    replied
    Originally posted by bregma View Post

    My guess is that no company is going to choose a ghost entity like "Wayland" (which is a protocol, a text file containing some technical definitions) over a registered corporation as the supplier of a critical piece of infrastructure for their product. Who will the lawyers go after when the controls on the radiation therapy device cease to function while delivering a critical dose if it's running a Wayland? Maybe the Wayland is mutter, but the Gnome foundation is very careful to distance itself from liability. Same for all the other "community" driven compositing display servers that implement Wayland that are out there. Read their licenses. Nope, no manager who values her paycheck is going to risk that. They're going to look at Canonical and ask "can I sue you when I toast a patient" and Canonical will say "yes" .

    On the flip side, GPLv3 is anathema in the IoT space, so that's not in Mir's favour unless Canonical can offer the software under modified license terms (which, thanks to their CLA, they can!). Mutter is GPLv2, which is OK in the IoT world. Enlightenment and Weston are BSD and MIT licensed respectively, so OK. KWin is GPLv2+, which sends lawyers screaming and babbling (even more) incoherently, but Qt itself is LGPLv3 and GPLv3 but offers modified commercial license terms just like Mir does.

    So, for those of you whose lips tire before silently reading through the above paragraphs, what Mir would offer over its competitors in the IoT space is liability and acceptable license terms. Turns out that given two technically equivalent choices, business decisions are going to be made on non-technical business criteria and purity of essence and righteousness do not enter in to the equation.
    This is full of shit! Let me ask you a question, who is to blame when Linux kernel crashes in that radiation machine? So let Canonical write their own kernel then. Let canonical write their own GUI toolkit, browser, etc. They could have very easily adopted Wayland, and contribute to it when find deficiency. Or they can implement a compositor and Unity complying to the Wayland protocol, thus having their own thing and taking the blame. They will do it now for Desktop, and I assure you, they will do it for IoT later, burning a lot of money in the process, and f*cking up Unity.

    Leave a comment:


  • bregma
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
    But why not Wayland? I mean: not to start a flamewar again or anything, but if Canonical is already switching to Wayland for desktop cases, then why not for IoT cases as well? What does Mir better than Wayland when it comes to IoT?
    My guess is that no company is going to choose a ghost entity like "Wayland" (which is a protocol, a text file containing some technical definitions) over a registered corporation as the supplier of a critical piece of infrastructure for their product. Who will the lawyers go after when the controls on the radiation therapy device cease to function while delivering a critical dose if it's running a Wayland? Maybe the Wayland is mutter, but the Gnome foundation is very careful to distance itself from liability. Same for all the other "community" driven compositing display servers that implement Wayland that are out there. Read their licenses. Nope, no manager who values her paycheck is going to risk that. They're going to look at Canonical and ask "can I sue you when I toast a patient" and Canonical will say "yes" .

    On the flip side, GPLv3 is anathema in the IoT space, so that's not in Mir's favour unless Canonical can offer the software under modified license terms (which, thanks to their CLA, they can!). Mutter is GPLv2, which is OK in the IoT world. Enlightenment and Weston are BSD and MIT licensed respectively, so OK. KWin is GPLv2+, which sends lawyers screaming and babbling (even more) incoherently, but Qt itself is LGPLv3 and GPLv3 but offers modified commercial license terms just like Mir does.

    So, for those of you whose lips tire before silently reading through the above paragraphs, what Mir would offer over its competitors in the IoT space is liability and acceptable license terms. Turns out that given two technically equivalent choices, business decisions are going to be made on non-technical business criteria and purity of essence and righteousness do not enter in to the equation.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by bregma View Post
    Well, you could consider that "IoT device" includes your in-car infotainment console (pretty useless without a display), medical devices of all kinds (howsabout a CAT scan with no picture of your brain?), and the smart mirror in your bathroom that displays the news and weather while you shave. What are you imagining an IoT device to be?
    And that stuff needs a display server at all? Isn't 99.9% of the times a single application running fullscreen?
    Hell, I've seen single blobs that have both application AND display drivers in them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    But why not Wayland? I mean: not to start a flamewar again or anything, but if Canonical is already switching to Wayland for desktop cases, then why not for IoT cases as well? What does Mir better than Wayland when it comes to IoT?

    Leave a comment:


  • Drago
    replied
    Canonical continues going in the down spiral. Mir...how many IoT use Mir..0? In the same time Wayland is used in numerous devices already, be it cars, TVs, fridges, etc. And there were people saying when Mir was presented: "Canonical, don't burn money, don't be stupid". Now I can't believe we are loosing Unity because if this debacle, yes I am happy Unity user, I admit it. In fact Unity is the only thing keeping me on Ubuntu. Very sad circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • onicsis
    replied
    Still not clear after many years, if Mir has some significant advantages over Wayland even for IOT, other than Canonical tight control.
    Mir seem to be just a Mirage to screw up Ubuntu Touch or Unity faith
    Last edited by onicsis; 16 June 2017, 05:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X