Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Mar 2013 16:13 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Mark Shuttleworth: "I simply have zero interest in the crowd who wants to be different. Leet. 'Linux is supposed to be hard so it's exclusive' is just the dumbest thing that a smart person could say." He's right. Lots of interesting insights in this blog post - I may not agree with everything Ubuntu does, but at least it's doing something.
Thread beginning with comment 554785
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Lunitik on Fri 8th Mar 2013 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

Sure, but there is no reason why one cannot state an opinion why they're making a mistake, or point out that they claimed to support Wayland, while at the same time working on a completely different solution in secret.

I think that the fact the Wayland FAQ details why DBUS wasn't used shows that at least SOMEONE pointed out a reason people dislike it. Further, I think the plan was to adopt Wayland, but again, Wayland isn't software, it is a protocol spec. Weston is an implementation of that spec, but it replaces much of what Unity does and made Compiz utterly obsolete. They could have implemented Wayland in Compiz, but they're still writing their own display server in this scenario. If they're going to have to write one anyway, why not do it how they see fit?

It should also be noted that people would respond more warmly if Canonical had previously demonstrated the chops to do a massive infrastructure project such as this. There is always a first time, I guess...

Launchpad is pretty huge, upstart is very much a core piece, as was usplash and libnux. I think you are overstating the size that a display server needs to be though, hardware (graphics and input, etc) are in the kernel and things like fonts are implemented in other projects or directly in Qt. What the display server really needs to do is bring this stuff together and display it on the screen. The problem with Xorg is it tries to offer everything within one codebase. Mir, instead, will just bring everything together so that Unity can manage it within the various possible configurations (number of screens, form factor, resolution, etc)

That is what the Wayland devs said. What they didn't appreciate was Canonical dumping on their work with utter BS.

I do not think it was utter BS, most of the comments from the Wayland devs suggest these are things they've fixed recently. We have to remember that Mir is already almost a year old, I feel the reasoning was probably valid at that time.

I think the Wayland/Weston developers were mostly annoyed because the reasons given were things they were willing to work on. I think Canonical should have echoed the protocol agnostic story more loudly, which Wayland guys have insisted they wouldn't have changed (heck, they are basically just a protocol and implementation of said, the project itself goes away without that protocol... hence mir)

Reply Parent Score: 3