Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Ubuntu System Compositor: Wayland Plug-In, Not Fork

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,838

    Default Ubuntu System Compositor: Wayland Plug-In, Not Fork

    Phoronix: Ubuntu System Compositor: Wayland Plug-In, Not Fork

    One of the more interesting technical sessions last week at the UDS-Q summit was concerning the Ubuntu 12.10 plans for a system compositor, which would be based upon Wayland. While I still view it as unlikely to happen in any meaningful way for Ubuntu 12.10, other developers have since expressed their views as well...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEwMjk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    I think Ubuntu is forking too much, this will end in a "forking hell", because the projects will get harder and harder to maintain / update.
    If you look at software center you see how complicate it is for ubuntu to build a simple, fast application. I don´t think they have to manpower to maintain that much forks..
    I believe the packages will outdate over time and updates will be slower and slower. If that happens, the userbase switches over to another distribution like Mint...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacefish View Post
    I think Ubuntu is forking too much, this will end in a "forking hell"
    I think we're already there.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacefish View Post
    I think Ubuntu is forking too much, this will end in a "forking hell", because the projects will get harder and harder to maintain / update.
    If you look at software center you see how complicate it is for ubuntu to build a simple, fast application. I don´t think they have to manpower to maintain that much forks..
    I believe the packages will outdate over time and updates will be slower and slower. If that happens, the userbase switches over to another distribution like Mint...
    umm, mint started cinnamon, so is not just ubuntu forking stuff.

    As long as the experience is good, the code is open, clean and stable and they can maintain it then am ok.

    but it would probably be a good idea to try the plugin route.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,054

    Default No, please no!

    If "rotating cube transitions" and other effects are done as an extension of kernel modules, everyone (Wayland users) can benefit from the work.
    What?
    Rotating cube transitions as a kernel module? Noway!
    The kernel should only handle KMS and GEM/TTM, it shouldn't do any rotating cube transitions.
    That stuff should be left outside the kernel!

    I love rotating cube transitions as much as any other guy, but that should not be as a kernel mode!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    What?
    Rotating cube transitions as a kernel module? Noway!
    The kernel should only handle KMS and GEM/TTM, it shouldn't do any rotating cube transitions.
    That stuff should be left outside the kernel!

    I love rotating cube transitions as much as any other guy, but that should not be as a kernel mode!
    I'm sure he meant a wayland plugin. I the same vein as the rest of his message.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacefish View Post
    I think Ubuntu is forking too much, this will end in a "forking hell", because the projects will get harder and harder to maintain / update.
    If you look at software center you see how complicate it is for ubuntu to build a simple, fast application. I don´t think they have to manpower to maintain that much forks..
    I believe the packages will outdate over time and updates will be slower and slower. If that happens, the userbase switches over to another distribution like Mint...
    So what… It’s Shuttleworth’s problem. I'm not aware of any Canonical software/fork that creates actual vendor lock-in. So users can easily switch to Debian, Red Hat or SUSE.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    So what… It’s Shuttleworth’s problem. I'm not aware of any Canonical software/fork that creates actual vendor lock-in. So users can easily switch to Debian, Red Hat or SUSE.
    While that's true, it's a shame for the GNU/Linux community that Canonical seems to be unable to give back to the community and actually contribute to projects that are not-invented-here. They have quite a large developer-base which is definitely something the community needs.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azpegath View Post
    While that's true, it's a shame for the GNU/Linux community that Canonical seems to be unable to give back to the community and actually contribute to projects that are not-invented-here. They have quite a large developer-base which is definitely something the community needs.
    canonicals job isn't to contribute back to the community. its job is to get whats best (or what they think is) out of the community, package it, polish it, make it easy and serve it to a wide audience.

    you can see them as the advertising branch of linux based OSes.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    canonicals job isn't to contribute back to the community. its job is to get whats best (or what they think is) out of the community, package it, polish it, make it easy and serve it to a wide audience.
    you can see them as the advertising branch of linux based OSes.
    Also true, since GNU/Linux is all about openness and the ability to "borrow" from each other's work. Canonical has always focused on the packaging and the usability, which definitely has its value! And since it's a company, nobody can expect them to do anything else than try to turn a profit and be as successful as possible. But that's also where the difference is between Apple and a company with FOSS-based ethics. It's all in the eye of the beholder, how do they contribute the most (except to their own profit):
    * Focus completely on making the best product they can without regards to the community, and by doing it create a GNU/Linux poster-boy for the world to see (never mind that they step on some toes in the process, because it's all for the good of the community in the end, just not in concrete code).
    * Focus on making the best product, but in the process of doing it, they try to work together with the community and get as many developers as possible to work in the same direction instead of fragmenting the FOSS community even more. Not that that's always a bad thing, if an awesome new product comes out of it, having the guts (and mind) to think different and never care about what other people think.

    Ok, this is now officially a rant. But the "ethics" discussion can be interesting, I'd just rather do it verbally in a bar with a beer instead of typing my hands off

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •