Linked by the_randymon on Wed 9th Jan 2013 00:48 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 547867
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I really don't see his point either. If there already was a great number of compositors for Wayland then, sure, yes I could maybe see it but as it is there's only the reference implementation.
It's not like porting Compiz would cause a great deal of fragmentation in the Wayland landscape.
It's not like porting Compiz would cause a great deal of fragmentation in the Wayland landscape.
Not to mention that Compiz could be given as an example of fragmentation because it's an extra / standard hack to the preferred window managers the desktop environments ship.
So I wonder if the underlying annoyance is the number of DEs that include their own compositing window managers (eg KWin), pushing Compiz out of the market. From his point of view, it may not be worth porting to Wayland because if/when the big DE's switch, people will largely be using those WM's over his.
If that is the reason behind his rant, then I can kind of sympathise, but I cannot agree with him. Yeah it sucks when new software pushes your older product out, but that's how all software works and how businesses work as well. I don't agree that consumer choice should artificially crippled.
However if he is talking purely from the perspective of the work involved to support both X11 and Wayland, then I'm sure someone else will fork Compiz; and then once again we'll be talking about how great the open source model is.
Either way, I don't think he is a particularly good example of the drawbacks of fragmentation (and I'm not going to pretend that there isn't any).
That's his point.
Let's use that occasion and stay with a single codebase that has single behavior. I theory documented standards were meant to cope with that, in reality this approach fails as seed by sory state of linux desktop.
Re-implementing every component N times with slightly different behaviours and bugs all other components that interact with it has to deal with creates a complexity toll that OSS comunity (whatever vibrant it is in a given moment) just can't bear.





Member since:
2005-08-18
I really don't see his point either. If there already was a great number of compositors for Wayland then, sure, yes I could maybe see it but as it is there's only the reference implementation.
It's not like porting Compiz would cause a great deal of fragmentation in the Wayland landscape.