Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LXDE-Based Lubuntu Will Not Ship Mir Display Server

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    It's important to notice compositing != special effects.
    It's also important to note that compositing does not mean any requirement for 3D-accelerated OpenGL drivers.
    It was only Weston (not Wayland) that required 3D drivers in the past but even that is gone: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...s-1779133.html

    At least KWin 5 will support software rendering under Wayland as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8i8zZPzbU

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
      No.. I translate Red Hat backing Wayland as GTK saying "Screw Mir." Red Hat doesn't have complete control over Wayland, but they have enough control and influence that if RH told the head devs to "forget" about pulling the patches or to "misplace" the links to the patches, I have little doubt that it'd happen.
      so anyone thinks that is still just about technical arguments and not about politics and business competition from the big companies behind the distributions?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by k1l_ View Post
        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        No.. I translate Red Hat backing Wayland as GTK saying "Screw Mir." Red Hat doesn't have complete control over Wayland, but they have enough control and influence that if RH told the head devs to "forget" about pulling the patches or to "misplace" the links to the patches, I have little doubt that it'd happen.
        so anyone thinks that is still just about technical arguments and not about politics and business competition from the big companies behind the distributions?
        While one milks a bull, the other tries to collect the milk with a colander

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by k1l_ View Post
          so anyone thinks that is still just about technical arguments and not about politics and business competition from the big companies behind the distributions?
          Every time those technical arguments are explained, you (and all the others who keep screaming "politics!") seem to be curiously absent from the discussion...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
            No.. I translate Red Hat backing Wayland as GTK saying "Screw Mir." Red Hat doesn't have complete control over Wayland, but they have enough control and influence that if RH told the head devs to "forget" about pulling the patches or to "misplace" the links to the patches, I have little doubt that it'd happen.
            Red Hat and upstream was backing wayland before mir even existed, so your "translation" does not make any sense.

            Comment


            • #36
              Both Lubuntu and Kubuntu stated they want to ship X as default in 14.04. However according to Ubuntu's roadmap 14.04 will ship "XMir as default with the [X] fallback session removed" - does that mean at 14.04, these flavours will need to ship/maintain their own X stack?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                No.. I translate Red Hat backing Wayland as GTK saying "Screw Mir." Red Hat doesn't have complete control over Wayland, but they have enough control and influence that if RH told the head devs to "forget" about pulling the patches or to "misplace" the links to the patches, I have little doubt that it'd happen.
                It was Canonical's decision to leave the core team: http://www.gtk.org/development.php#Team
                Not long ago Canonical had developers there.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The technical challenges presented by Mir's development model have been explained by concerned developers many times now. However, I can't help but shake the feeling that these challenges are easily surmountable with sufficient motivation. After all, developers are engineers, and solving technical problems is what engineers do best. Ultimately, every time I read Martin Grasslin complaining about Mir, I keep getting the impression that his anti-Mir stance is mainly fueled by politics. I don't mean to say that Martin's concerns are invalid, or that overcoming these challenges is as easy as a snap of the fingers, but a developer's role is to develop solutions, and his refusal to develop (or integrate) solutions to these problems cannot be explained by purely technical terms.

                  Personally, I am very upset at the direction Canonical decided to go. I feel that Canonical's decision to develop a competing display server when Wayland was already in development fragments the community and divides projects. Thus, I believe that Canonical's decision is causing damage to the community. I believe that Canonical's decision was driven by business rather than technical considerations. I believe that the lack of cooperation Canonical is facing from the rest of the community will cause financial harm to Canonical. I believe that Canonical's decision was selfish, and I believe that the community response will cause this selfish decision to backfire.

                  Thus, on a personal level I approve of the lack of outside support, and occassionally outright hostility, that Canonical is having to deal with. I don't think that Red Hat is behind any of this. I get the impression that the amount of influence Red Hat has over GTK and Wayland development is very minor. However, I also believe that whatever influence Red Hat does have, Red Hat earned through years of paying some developer salaries. Considering that Novell and Mandrake / Mandriva used to do the same but eventually found this difficult to sustain, Red Hat's behavior becomes even more admirable in retrospect. Canonical had the same opportunities to be involved in GTK and Wayland development, and had been urged by outsiders to contribute more, but most allege that Canonical has traditionally kept this involvement minimal. Now, Canonical is reaping what it has sowed, and in my mind, this is all fair and good. (Also, I hate adware, so I always enjoy a company that develops adware get kicked in the shin.)

                  But in the end, I still think that the community response against Canonical and Mir is motivated by ideological rather than technical reasons, and on some level this causes me some shame, as I consider myself to be a part of this community. I don't think that the community should be more receptive of Mir, but I do think that we should at least call it what it is: political concerns, not technical ones.

                  Qt's development, on the other hand, is controlled by a for-profit company, not a community. I would be extremely surprised if Digia denies Canonical assistance in upstreaming Mir support, especially if Canonical offers to do most of the legwork.

                  Edit: I also want to add that I realize Canonical is a business that has the right to decide where to spend its money, but I think what people overlook is that Canonical owes a debt to the community for providing the bulk of the stack that Canonical has built its business around. Canonical does not need to contribute back - the license terms do not mandate reciprocation - but what stings the most about this is that I think Canonical is actually hurting the community that it is in debt to.
                  Serge
                  Senior Member
                  Last edited by Serge; 30 June 2013, 02:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                    Red Hat and upstream was backing wayland before mir even existed, so your "translation" does not make any sense.
                    See my correction above Bwat, I couldnt edit my original post
                    All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by k1l_ View Post
                      so anyone thinks that is still just about technical arguments and not about politics and business competition from the big companies behind the distributions?
                      Its partially technical arguments, its also non-technical arguments as well. MIR does server side allocation because on ARM thats better, but on x86 its worse-- Canonical is betting ARM is the future, which is fine, but what if something supplants ARM and client-side allocation is better there? Wayland does client side because its the best choice for all architectures except ARM, where the loss / gain is minimal. Its being agnostic.

                      There's also the issue of the license, a lot of FOSS developers refuse to sign over copyright of their code out of fear that the new holder will close source the product. COULD Canonical do that? Yes. WILL they do that? We don't know, so far they havent had the power (and the balls) to take a jump like that.

                      There's also the issue that Canonical has stated that they ONLY care about Unity. ABI and API breaks will come at the behest of the Unity team, if they break KDE, or Gnome, or XFCE in the process then thats their problem. Wayland promises API stability for 1.x.x and I believe ABI stability for 1.1.x (ABI is in the same situation as Xorg is right now so thats not a change)
                      All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X