Wayland -> XHtml 2.0 ?
This entire discussion reminds me of XHTML 2.0, which was determined to replace HTML 4 but then was halted due to HTML5 being developed independently and the W3C was eager to keep its monopole on web-standards. Is HTML5 better than XHTML 2.0? Definitely not, maybe even worse.
So, what teaches us this lesson learned years ago?
When a company starts developing a proprietary solution (for me, Mir is proprietary with the horrible license applied to it) and standards-faculties are feeling pushy to bring out their own solution or even try to implement the foreign solution, then I have to tell you that Canonical is just interested in their own profit and might not even care for a full-fledged solution for the GNU-operating system.
Please people, especially at X.org, open your eyes and do what you've been doing best: promoting Wayland, even though it might not have a multi-billion-dollar company behind it.
This entire discussion reminds me of XHTML 2.0, which was determined to replace HTML 4 but then was halted due to HTML5 being developed independently and the W3C was eager to keep its monopole on web-standards. Is HTML5 better than XHTML 2.0? Definitely not, maybe even worse.
So, what teaches us this lesson learned years ago?
When a company starts developing a proprietary solution (for me, Mir is proprietary with the horrible license applied to it) and standards-faculties are feeling pushy to bring out their own solution or even try to implement the foreign solution, then I have to tell you that Canonical is just interested in their own profit and might not even care for a full-fledged solution for the GNU-operating system.
Please people, especially at X.org, open your eyes and do what you've been doing best: promoting Wayland, even though it might not have a multi-billion-dollar company behind it.
Comment