Originally posted by ryao
View Post
but I do not care enough about Wayland to track its development to catch these things.
The closest of which I am aware is an incident where Intel reverted a commit to support Canonical's Mir from their driver; it had the side effect of pushing people toward the technologies that they are using in Mir. Clearly, they have a bias.
Anyway, the converse question is do you know of any cases where Wayland's development has compromised Tizen's development goals. I cannot imagine an executive at Intel letting that happen (at least not without firing people).
Secondly, I don't really see how there could be anything about Wayland development that would compromise Tizen's development goals. Seeing that Wayland is an extensible protocol (like OpenGL) and that it's built in a way that it can be adapted to be used in many use cases (mobile, desktop, etc.) and that it's open source, seems to me like there's not very much the Wayland devs could do to make it go against Tizen's development goals.
Thirdly, it still hasn't been shown that Intel has such control over Wayland (I don't think it does) that it could simply decide what it "lets happen" within Wayland development.
A while back, I read comment by Kristian H?gsberg that stated what he was doing with Wayland could have been an X11 extension, but it would have left the rest of the X server inert. In the extreme case, it is not hard to imagine an extension that encapsulates a new protocol inside of the existing X11 protocol. It has been a while and I can no longer find it, but your own comments seem to corroborate my recollection. From what you say, it seems clear that this could have been done with X11 (much like web 2.0 can be done with HTTP), but it would not have been done how you would like.
Anyway, I have repeatedly said that it is okay for people to go off and do their own thing. I just don't think that reinventing the wheel merits hype.
Comment