Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Sep 2013 21:22 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
X11, Window Managers Intel on Ubuntu's XMir:

We do not condone or support Canonical in the course of action they have chosen, and will not carry XMir patches upstream.

Ubuntu has to do virtually all its work on Xmir drivers by itself. No one else supports it.

Thread beginning with comment 571663
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by aaronb
by darknexus on Tue 10th Sep 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by aaronb"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Anyway, this only means that Canonical has a bit more work on their hands. It's basically people telling them something along the lines of "You want Mir instead of Wayland then make it work yourselves".

Yep, and Canonical will do just that, resulting in graphics libraries needing to support two new backends instead of one, and neither will be done well. Fucking wonderful!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by aaronb
by shmerl on Tue 10th Sep 2013 00:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by aaronb"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Everyone, except Canonical I guess, expected Mir to cause a major mess for the global Linux community. Did Canonical care?

Edited 2013-09-10 00:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by aaronb
by darknexus on Tue 10th Sep 2013 13:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by aaronb"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Everyone, except Canonical I guess, expected Mir to cause a major mess for the global Linux community. Did Canonical care?

Did you expect them to, given past behaviors? I think everyone be they application developers, library maintainers, graphics driver gurus, etc should just make a concerted effort to stop working on anything related to Canonical. They want to do it themselves? Let's see them do just that.
Note, I'm not being spiteful here. I would actually love to see this exact result happen not to destroy Canonical, but so that we might eventually get a somewhat integrated ecosystem. On which side such integration will happen is something I cannot predict. The wider community has more resources, but very little direction. Canonical are the reverse: they obviously know what they want and why, but aren't focusing as much of their resources on it as they should and are being hampered in some ways by the community. I think Canonical should be put through the crucible, so to speak. I think they have it in them but, as long as they're concerned with the wider community's development and reactions, they won't ever focus on themselves enough to make their operating system happen.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by aaronb
by WorknMan on Tue 10th Sep 2013 00:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by aaronb"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yep, and Canonical will do just that, resulting in graphics libraries needing to support two new backends instead of one, and neither will be done well. f--king wonderful!


Yup, when you live in the FOSS world, this is exactly what happens. If you want the code to be open and allow people to do whatever the hell they want with it, don't get too butt-hurt when they do just that.

This is what kills Linux on the desktop. Since you don't have a person or group in charge of the ship, it just kind of wanders all over the place with no real direction. Even if you get 99% of the community going in the same direction, all it takes is the other 1% to screw it up, esp if that 1% happens to have a lot of $$.

Edited 2013-09-10 00:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by aaronb
by orestes on Tue 10th Sep 2013 05:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by aaronb"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

More like there is no ship to begin with and never will be. Just a whole bunch of rafts built from parts of a larger forest.

As for the other guy, no it doesn't mean graphics libraries will have to support two back ends. Quite the opposite really. If everybody but Ubuntu goes to Wayland, it's on Ubuntu to handle the support or become increasingly irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 6