LXDE-Based Lubuntu Will Not Ship Mir Display Server

[Luke]

Compositing on Pentium 4 and older machines

I agree only partially. Leaving aside the extra memory use, compositing without special effects (just as a meaning to avoid artifacts) shouldn't really add too much overhead, which means there are probably some x86 scenarios where compositing isn't something you need to avoid. Of course, this applies only for the latest generations of x86_32 computers. I wouldn't use compositing on a K6-II with 256MB of RAM and a 16MB Matrox card, of course, but a Pentium 4 with 1 or 2GB and one of the newest AGP GeForce cards would probably work as a charm.

In fact, Pentium 4's will work fine with old-school compiz, though at a sacrifice of total available capacity if something like playing 720P video is an issue. I found that a 4GHZ Pentium 4 with a Radeon X1600 and the Radeon driver I tested was just able to play video with a totally non-compositing MATE environment (and no Pulseaudio), just short of being able to keep up with compiz-MATE. Almost exactly the same results with my Pine Trail (Intel Atom 1.6 GHZ) netbook, using far newer but small Intel graphics. Back in 2008-2009. with HD video a non-issue, that PIV was run with GNOME 2 Compiz, the performance difference was not noticed. Takes exactly the right load to go just over vs just short I guess. A video card new enough for VDPAU might fix this, but such a card in AGP usually costs too much to justify for a Pentium 4.

On the other hand, most Pentium 3 and older machines you can usually forget compositing. You have to add a (getting hard to find) AGP video card with openGL capability, and only older Compiz will run on the first generation Radeons and similar cards that came in early Pentium 4's and were sometimes dropped into Pentium 3's by owners. A Pentium 3 with enough video card to use XV will play VGA video using MPEG 4 encoding, or DVD video fine but will choke on H264 even in the slightly smaller 360P format. I know this from using a 450MHZ Pentium 3 and an 800MHZ Celeron with several specific videos to benchmark different Ubuntu versions on older hardware a few years ago. Nothing I tested ever outperformed Jaunty Jackalape on those.

There are a few Nvidia GT520's made for a straight PCI slot. I would be curious about how one of these with Nvidia's binary blob would perform on a Pentium 3 "coppermine" with VDPAU and something like 360p H264 and 720p H264. Certainly compositing would work, don't know how bad the CPU load would be to support it. I did once run Compiz with a Geforce 5(something something somthing) card on an AMD Athlon 500 MHZ, it worked but was much snappier running XFCE instead. Firefox bogged down when GNOME 2/Compiz was run. It played VGA video well-but NOT in Flash so video sharing sites were useless on it. This was in 2008, so it was never tested with HD video before I gave it to a friend in need.

[mrugiero]

Any closed-source derivative of Ubuntu (or just of Mir) shipped by a carrier on their device should automatically make the device untrusted, as I regard ALL smartphones to be right now. I would prefer that Ubuntu dump the carriers and simply write a known trustworthy OS that users can install on unlocked or rooted devices. Hell, I so distrust all the telecoms that I would insist not only on Linux but also on Coreboot installed myself on any device I was going to use both as a computer and as a modem on a cell carrier's network at the same time. Since the carriers might refuse to connect to such a device, that means a USB port and their USB access stick, or better yet their wireless hotspot and the device's wifi radio, are needed for connection. Nothing else can be trusted by the user and the carrier, as each considers the other malicious.

Then Ubuntu would probably lack funding for Mir. Not that I support Mir, but if they're gonna do it anyway, they better get funding to.

As for distros like LXDE-and older WMs like IceWM, they are meant for older x86 machines and x86 netobooks, both of which slow down badly when using compositing. I will go so far as to say that any machine that either predated Windows VIsta or was considered unable to run Vista when it was sold should be considered a good candidate for a non-compositing, X-only DE. After all, no pre-Vista computer sold with Windoze on it was designed for desktop compositing. Getting rid of compositing really helps both responsiveness and video playback on them.

I agree only partially. Leaving aside the extra memory use, compositing without special effects (just as a meaning to avoid artifacts) shouldn't really add too much overhead, which means there are probably some x86 scenarios where compositing isn't something you need to avoid. Of course, this applies only for the latest generations of x86_32 computers. I wouldn't use compositing on a K6-II with 256MB of RAM and a 16MB Matrox card, of course, but a Pentium 4 with 1 or 2GB and one of the newest AGP GeForce cards would probably work as a charm.

[Luke]

Closed-source carrier derivatives can never be trusted

I do expect, however, their carriers to ship modified, closed source derivatives.

Any closed-source derivative of Ubuntu (or just of Mir) shipped by a carrier on their device should automatically make the device untrusted, as I regard ALL smartphones to be right now. I would prefer that Ubuntu dump the carriers and simply write a known trustworthy OS that users can install on unlocked or rooted devices. Hell, I so distrust all the telecoms that I would insist not only on Linux but also on Coreboot installed myself on any device I was going to use both as a computer and as a modem on a cell carrier's network at the same time. Since the carriers might refuse to connect to such a device, that means a USB port and their USB access stick, or better yet their wireless hotspot and the device's wifi radio, are needed for connection. Nothing else can be trusted by the user and the carrier, as each considers the other malicious.

As for distros like LXDE-and older WMs like IceWM, they are meant for older x86 machines and x86 netobooks, both of which slow down badly when using compositing. I will go so far as to say that any machine that either predated Windows VIsta or was considered unable to run Vista when it was sold should be considered a good candidate for a non-compositing, X-only DE. After all, no pre-Vista computer sold with Windoze on it was designed for desktop compositing. Getting rid of compositing really helps both responsiveness and video playback on them.

[intellivision]

Seems like you have no arguments ?

I don't want to get into an argument about anything, I'm just pointing out an obvious observation about the amount of emotive language in your post to see that you are in fact very passionate about this subject for some reason.

[Awesomeness]

It looks to me that you're letting your emotions dictate your decisions, you're using a lot of emotive language in your post to get that point across.

Seems like you have no arguments ?

[intellivision]

I see no politics in https://plus.google.com/115606635748...ts/136nV4uojKH
OTOH Canonical?s ?political?/economic reasons are clear for everybody who?s not braindead: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html



It's downstream?s duty to integrate upstream, not the other way around.



So, not blindly playing by Canonical?s rules is politically motivated instead of technically? Seriously: I don?t get your argument.
The KWin devs have been preparing for Wayland since at least 2011, maybe longer.
Even though my programming times are long over, I can clearly remember that programming ?if X do ? else do ?? code is an entirely different thing to do than asking for 3 or more conditions. As he explained in the G+ post, KWin is now being developed for 2 and only 2 display servers.
Since at least 2010 Canonical was telling everybody that Ubuntu will switch to Wayland: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551

Fast forward to 2013 and suddenly everything said in the past 3 years is invalid, and everything said in the past 6 months even lies (because Mir was in development then already) but nonetheless everybody else is expected to support Mir.
Why is that? Why do only Ubuntu fans feel so especially deserving? No one every seriously cried that KWin does not support Android's SurfaceFlinger or OSX? Quartz.
If somebody asks Martin if KWin will natively support:
Android SurfaceFlinger,
OS X Quartz,
or Ubuntu?s Mir,
the reply will always be No. Not a single Android or OS X users would ever cry foul for that but all those whining Ubuntu fanboys do.


Red Hat has a good reputation because they do good community work and do not constantly try to screw everybody over.


Mandriva went bankrupt several times because the company was always led by idiots.
Novell had financial problems because A) they had to still support all their old Netware stuff (that costs money) and B) Novell bought Ximian before SUSE which meant that Microsoft fanboy Miguel De Icaza was in charge for all Linux decisions ? many that led to outcries in the community: First trying to completely ban KDE from SUSE Linux, then pushing Mono everywhere, later closing off Compiz development for the public, etc.


Whatever? Canonical is trying to bullshit everyone else and the backlash is what they deserve for lying about Wayland?s allegedly inferior technology, trying to screw everybody over with their CLA Mir, etc.

Even if the backlash was solely politically motivated (although I already proved that there are also technical issues and getting pissed after being insulted is an emotional, not a political reason): There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The Free Software movement is a political movement! It is a democratic movement! And moving against a ?self-appointed dictator for life? is completely aligned with democratic goals.


Whichever plugins Canonical ever wrote for Qt (the first was appmenu-qt, QMir is just the most recent one), Canonical never ever tried to upstream anything of it. That would mean to hand over licensing authority to some else. Even worse: To an institution that has a long-standing contract that forever guaranties complete freedom for Qt (KDE Free Qt Foundation).
And no, Qt is not controlled by a company instead of a community. Ever since open governance Qt is a community project. Digia controls some aspects but not Qt in general.

It looks to me that you're letting your emotions dictate your decisions, you're using a lot of emotive language in your post to get that point across.

[k1l_]

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.

we dont know if they do it doesnt mean they will do it. Everyone is talking as if canonical already did close MIR down. Licensewise you could even close MIT code down so other projects should be named with the same fear too, if you play fair on that against all. i think that closing-down sidedoor is needed to give mobile carriers the closed own version of that OS that they want to change for their needs. same situation on android. but that doesnt mean ubuntu will automatically close MIR down completly. I dont think you can go into the mobile market without that option for carriers.

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)

well yes, the main target for MIR is to be a fast displayserver for unity. but that doesnt exclude that other desktops can or will run on it. RAOF made some blog/g+ postings on that topics regarding backends for other desktops. that api and abi stability statement was redeemed last days (cant remember where i read that exactly) that they dont plan to change it everytime after they have settled it.


I think the problem in here is, that we have a range of possible decisions in the future for MIR. but instead of keeping them open or balance the arguments, a majority goes mad against ubuntu/canonical fed by some very few people with more than just technical intentions. i just think that most of the problems can be resolved once we calm down and come back to the technical point and dont dont think making money with a linux distribution is bad at all. just think of the other ones that make money with it and what we all gain from that.

[Awesomeness]

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 see no politics in https://plus.google.com/115606635748...ts/136nV4uojKH
OTOH Canonical?s ?political?/economic reasons are clear for everybody who?s not braindead: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html

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.

It's downstream?s duty to integrate upstream, not the other way around.

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.

So, not blindly playing by Canonical?s rules is politically motivated instead of technically? Seriously: I don?t get your argument.
The KWin devs have been preparing for Wayland since at least 2011, maybe longer.
Even though my programming times are long over, I can clearly remember that programming ?if X do ? else do ?? code is an entirely different thing to do than asking for 3 or more conditions. As he explained in the G+ post, KWin is now being developed for 2 and only 2 display servers.
Since at least 2010 Canonical was telling everybody that Ubuntu will switch to Wayland: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551

Fast forward to 2013 and suddenly everything said in the past 3 years is invalid, and everything said in the past 6 months even lies (because Mir was in development then already) but nonetheless everybody else is expected to support Mir.
Why is that? Why do only Ubuntu fans feel so especially deserving? No one every seriously cried that KWin does not support Android's SurfaceFlinger or OSX? Quartz.
If somebody asks Martin if KWin will natively support:
Android SurfaceFlinger,
OS X Quartz,
or Ubuntu?s Mir,
the reply will always be No. Not a single Android or OS X users would ever cry foul for that but all those whining Ubuntu fanboys do.

However, I also believe that whatever influence Red Hat does have, Red Hat earned through years of paying some developer salaries.

Red Hat has a good reputation because they do good community work and do not constantly try to screw everybody over.

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.

Mandriva went bankrupt several times because the company was always led by idiots.
Novell had financial problems because A) they had to still support all their old Netware stuff (that costs money) and B) Novell bought Ximian before SUSE which meant that Microsoft fanboy Miguel De Icaza was in charge for all Linux decisions ? many that led to outcries in the community: First trying to completely ban KDE from SUSE Linux, then pushing Mono everywhere, later closing off Compiz development for the public, etc.

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.

Whatever? Canonical is trying to bullshit everyone else and the backlash is what they deserve for lying about Wayland?s allegedly inferior technology, trying to screw everybody over with their CLA Mir, etc.

Even if the backlash was solely politically motivated (although I already proved that there are also technical issues and getting pissed after being insulted is an emotional, not a political reason): There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The Free Software movement is a political movement! It is a democratic movement! And moving against a ?self-appointed dictator for life? is completely aligned with democratic goals.

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.

Whichever plugins Canonical ever wrote for Qt (the first was appmenu-qt, QMir is just the most recent one), Canonical never ever tried to upstream anything of it. That would mean to hand over licensing authority to some else. Even worse: To an institution that has a long-standing contract that forever guaranties complete freedom for Qt (KDE Free Qt Foundation).
And no, Qt is not controlled by a company instead of a community. Ever since open governance Qt is a community project. Digia controls some aspects but not Qt in general.

[mrugiero]

True that they can't close the already open code, but they CAN decide that Mir 1.9.9 is open source and the Re-architectured Mir 2.0 is closed source and also incompatible with Mir 1.9.9. Canonical has shown they don't exactly play fair OR make always smart decisions when it comes to Ubuntu so I'm not holding my breath. While I want to believe that Canonical doesnt have it in them to close-up Mir at some point in the future, Mark did say that Ubuntu was about making money first and foremost, so I don't really put anything past them... Greed makes people stupid.

Yes, they can. They don't even need to re-architecture it, as long as they'd released every previous contribution in the previous version, with the previous license, and as long as this last open version keeps available. If they do that, they already kept their part of the contract.
But I don't think they will close it, though, because at the very least that would be very bad for their most basic marketing campaign (that little speech saying Ubuntu would always be free and all of that).
I do expect, however, their carriers to ship modified, closed source derivatives.

[Ericg]

As for the license, they can't close source the original free one, they can only make closed source derivatives (it was already analyzed on another thread), the same as everyone with MIT. The license issue would actually be strictly political, because the only concern is that not everyone has the same rights. But there is no risk of losing Mir because of the CLA.

True that they can't close the already open code, but they CAN decide that Mir 1.9.9 is open source and the Re-architectured Mir 2.0 is closed source and also incompatible with Mir 1.9.9. Canonical has shown they don't exactly play fair OR make always smart decisions when it comes to Ubuntu so I'm not holding my breath. While I want to believe that Canonical doesnt have it in them to close-up Mir at some point in the future, Mark did say that Ubuntu was about making money first and foremost, so I don't really put anything past them... Greed makes people stupid.