A Demo Of Ubuntu's Unity 8 On The Desktop

[uid313]

because gedit? since gedit 3.10 it become a garbage

No, because nobody wants Mir which is redundant. All the Linux distributions and desktop environments and the community are behind Wayland. Mir just a NIH syndrome thing controlled by Canonical through CLA.

[profoundWHALE]

No, because nobody wants Mir which is redundant. All the Linux distributions and desktop environments and the community are behind Wayland. Mir just a NIH syndrome thing controlled by Canonical through CLA.

I think it's more of a "We will do it how we like to do it"

I can definitely understand other people's frustration at them because if they put the same effort into Wayland that they had into Mir, then we would probably have Wayland default desktops this or next year.

[CTown]

I'm more interested in the fact that three of the most popular desktop environments will be running the same toolkit but at the same time, the toolkit is not single-handedly controlled by any single project. That has to be a record in Desktop Linux. I hope the Qt Company understands/continues to understand how important an open Qt is to the Linux Desktop that countless millions have helped create.

[k1l_]

I think it's more of a "We will do it how we like to do it"

I can definitely understand other people's frustration at them because if they put the same effort into Wayland that they had into Mir, then we would probably have Wayland default desktops this or next year.

i think that is the root cause behind all that tension in the linux community. one site says: you need to do the work but only the way we want it. the other side says: if we do the work we want it our way. which side is "more right" is different from case to case and in the end it has lead to the linux we actually use today. some forks did a better job than the original and got settled, some others did not and were stopped.

i think the community needs to change back to letting innovation happen instead of demanding the one and only path of enlightment.

[finalzone]

i think that is the root cause behind all that tension in the linux community. one site says: you need to do the work but only the way we want it. the other side says: if we do the work we want it our way. which side is "more right" is different from case to case and in the end it has lead to the linux we actually use today. some forks did a better job than the original and got settled, some others did not and were stopped.

This topic was about display management, by far the most difficult software to work on. Forgotten is Mir owed its existence to the heavily lifting done on Wayland. Cooperation is a must in that case. Canonical lack manpower to work on Mir and the hard fact is they use software made for Wayland, among them is libinput done by a Xorg/Wayland developer.
Then we are back to square one, what is the real purpose of Mir?

[k1l_]

This topic was about display management, by far the most difficult software to work on. Forgotten is Mir owed its existence to the heavily lifting done on Wayland. Cooperation is a must in that case. Canonical lack manpower to work on Mir and the hard fact is they use software made for Wayland, among them is libinput done by a Xorg/Wayland developer.
Then we are back to square one, what is the real purpose of Mir?

canonical never said "all about wayland is crap and we will do everything differently".

the reason why they made mir (that was answered very often and lenghtly. did you even read about that or are you just repeating that "there is no reason for mir" mantra like the rest?) was because they wanted some specific setups that were not possible with wayland/weston ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir/Spec) . besides that they said from the beginning that they will try to stay close to wayland like with using egl video drivers etc.

so i dont see the "omg they use all the work from our precious wayland" as people try to make a shitstorm out of it. what do you loose if canonical makes mir? what is this fuzz all about? is it about canonical not doing the work for others? so we come back to the "do your work but the way we want it" issue. and that is plain not fair.

[finalzone]

canonical never said "all about wayland is crap and we will do everything differently".

Let refresh the memory with http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTMxODA

the reason why they made mir (that was answered very often and lenghtly. did you even read about that or are you just repeating that "there is no reason for mir" mantra like the rest?) was because they wanted some specific setups that were not possible with wayland/weston ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir/Spec) . besides that they said from the beginning that they will try to stay close to wayland like with using egl video drivers etc.

When you look at the revision, the original text should remain there unless it was expletive removed.

The points are all wasted effort to develop Mir could be used to improve Wayland protocol Canonical promised long time ago:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2469498/desktop-apps/ubuntu-abandons-x-server-for-wayland.html

[k1l_]

Let refresh the memory with http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTMxODA

please show me the point where they say "all of wayland is crap" since that was your point. i pointed out that they had specific requirements that could not be fullfilled with wayland (maybe you should read the primary informations and not only the phoronix summeries? http://blog.cooperteam.net/2013/03/for-posterity.html etc.pp.) and even that text you linked proofs my thesis, that canonical is pushed out of the team who can decide how things have to run but is only demanded to do their work.

besides that the ubuntu-wiki page about mir had outdated informations about wayland and should not have been published in that state. the involved persons did apologize for that.

When you look at the revision, the original text should remain there unless it was expletive removed.

see above

The points are all wasted effort to develop Mir could be used to improve Wayland protocol Canonical promised long time ago:
http://www.computerworld.com/article...r-wayland.html

when you look at the date (nov 2010) and look at the date of today. what do you think? when you ask the wayland guys they will tell you, that wayland is production-ready "since ages" but in reality that is just false. we dont have a working desktop on wayland right now.

and the other point is again: when canonical gets pushed back all the time when they want to contribute, who is to blame for doing own things then?

[blackout23]

when you look at the date (nov 2010) and look at the date of today. what do you think? when you ask the wayland guys they will tell you, that wayland is production-ready "since ages" but in reality that is just false. we dont have a working desktop on wayland right now.

Strange, I'm running Gnome on Wayland since 3.10...

[uid313]

Strange, I'm running Gnome on Wayland since 3.10...

You are using the GTK with the X11 backend through XWayland.
So you are basically running GNOME on Wayland over XWayland using the X11 backend.
You are not natively running GNOME on Wayland.

The Wayland backend for GTK is still not mature enough.