Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    It doesn't, because using XMir doesn't. If it'd make any sense to use XMir for the desktops, then you'd be right.
    Like it or not, vanilla Mir with Unity 8 is going to be default by 14.10. Xmir will be a very important component of it, to keep compatibility with old apps.
    As XMir should not, if developed right, have any noticeable impact for end users, it makes sense to activate it by default as soon as it is ready (on a technical point of view I mean).

    No bug is going to be reported and fixed if no one use the software. So better start such migration early and use multiple steps.
    That's the whole point of "release early release often" in fact.

    Citation needed.
    Well, just the fact that they are supported for 9 months vs. 5 years for LTS should be enough.
    AFAIK, nearly all computers sold with Ubuntu pre-installed still come with Precise nowadays.
    If it's still not enough for you, I know it was stated multiple time on ubuntu-devel during the "let's ditch intermediate releases and call what's between LTSs a rolling release" debate. You can look for it if you want.
    Last edited by Malizor; 08-25-2013, 01:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Malizor View Post
      Like it or not, vanilla Mir with Unity 8 is going to be default by 14.10. Xmir will be a very important component of it, to keep compatibility with old apps.
      As XMir should not, if developed right, have any noticeable impact for end users, it makes sense to activate it by default as soon as it is ready (on a technical point of view I mean).

      No bug is going to be reported and fixed if no one use the software. So better start such migration early and use multiple steps.
      That's the whole point of "release early release often" in fact.
      No, it doesn't. As you test vanilla Mir, you test XMir for apps just the same.
      Also, IRL, things do have an impact, and there is a concept in software maintenance called bug surface, which is why you don't just add pointless layers.
      Yet again, XMir is just an X server running on top of Mir, and testing it for apps is relatively trivial. And still, being a tester should be optional (since Ubuntu doesn't pay us to use Ubuntu, it's voluntary testing, and voluntary testing should be, well, voluntary), and that's the main drama: they are forcing novice users to become testers, if not for between-LTS releases (since you consider them glorified betas), they are still putting that on a LTS release.

      Well, just the fact that they are supported for 9 months vs. 5 years for LTS should be enough.
      No, it isn't enough. Give an actual reason why 9 months support implies a more advanced user than 5 years support. Also, with citation, I meant citation. Quote any Ubuntu source for that.

      AFAIK, nearly all computers sold with Ubuntu pre-installed still come with Precise nowadays.
      Irrelevant. A lot of people gets Ubuntu installed by a friend. All of the novice users I know, use it after a friend installed it. In several of such cases, I'm that friend.

      If it's still not enough for you, I know it was stated multiple time on ubuntu-devel during the "let's ditch intermediate releases and call what's between LTSs a rolling release" debate. You can look for it if you want.
      I know of such a debate, but that has nothing to do with being "for advanced users" or not, but with maintenance. It would become for more advanced users, but take a hint why they didn't make them rolling releases.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by nll_a
        I'm not saying I like that Canonical reserves the right to make the code proprietary. I really don't, and I wish that was explicitly forbidden in the CLA. But I just don't see how that situation is so much different than having a GPL-licensed open source application with a single developer, and I still think it's much better than having MIT- or BSD-licensed code.

        I find it really amusing that Qt doesn't get the same flack by having a CLA and actually selling a proprietary version while Canonical doesn't do this and as far as we can tell never will.
        First, I'll address the MIT/BSD situation. They do think of their code as a gift for anyone, they just don't care. It's symmetric. Everyone can do anything they like. You can agree or disagree with them, but this means you have exactly the same right as everyone else. So, it's at least somewhat fair. You can still make a GPL fork, if you want, so all work made on top of that, will be GPL.
        Second, when there is a single developer, you can't blame him for doing whatever he wants: it's his sole work, nobody helped him, and he did gave his code. In the case of the CLA, the CLA exists because it's expected that several people will contribute, and they probably contribute because they want to help a free software project (with the exception of, in this case, Canonical paid developers). But then, you have more rights than all of the other developers, which is not only unfair to the user, but to the developers themselves.
        On the Qt vs. Canonical situation, I don't like such a CLA at all, either.
        On the other hand, the fact Canonical didn't make that closed source version yet, doesn't mean they won't, and chances are they have such intention: if it were to protect the project from being illegally used in closed source applications, they won't ask the right to sublicense, but the copyright (since they need to be the copyright holders for suing). They explicitly ask for the right to relicense and not the copyright, and guess what, they probably do that because they want to use that right to relicense.

        And to readdress the point of the single developer, you can fix it by having multiple developers, which happens to be the case in most of the important projects.

        Comment

        Working...
        X