Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu

[ворот93]

I've been using systemd for almost a year - ZERO problems. Several distributions are now using it by default (oh yeah, so fricking 'experimental'). You don't have a clue bud! Fedora not an established distro ~ LOLOLOLOLz. I don't used it, but either you are incorrectly using the word 'established' or you just don't have a clue at all. It sounds to me like you are just a fanboy, more than anything.

and i don't have to believe you - i've tested sysv, upstart, and systemd ~ hands down, systemd is much faster.

And I don't have to believe you either. From my experience, Fedora and openSUSE are two pieces of crap that fail to work out of the box correctly. Unlike Ubuntu which always rocks right from the start.

interesting how your comments don't actually address any point that i was actually making (why am i not surprised). and fyi, if you are going to call someone ignorant - you better be prepared to explain exactly what makes them ignorant...

because from where i am sitting, it is actually you whom is ignorant by definition (since that is exactly what your comments reflect. sorry about your luck).

It's interesting how you are a militant opensourcist, be it attacking NVIDIA for providing proper drivers or Ubuntu for being more successful than Red Hat's stuff. Sorry, but you are a fanboy and a crying bitch.

[ninez]

And I don't have to believe you either. From my experience, Fedora and openSUSE are two pieces of crap that fail to work out of the box correctly. Unlike Ubuntu which always rocks right from the start.

You're right, you don't have to believe me. but on any system i have used, or any system anyone else i know has used - systemd boots in a fraction of the time of upstart or sysv. i also could care less if you think opensuse or fedora is crap (since i use neither, that has ZERO relevance - ie: i was never making an argument 'for' Fedora or Suse vs. Ubuntu - did you think i was or something?!? wtf?).

It's interesting how you are a militant opensourcist, be it attacking NVIDIA for providing proper drivers or Ubuntu for being more successful than Red Hat's stuff. Sorry, but you are a fanboy and a crying bitch.

It's interesting how you are either a complete moron, or have me mixed up with someone else, entirely. (or both)

1. Militant opensourcist? - fuck no. I am very pragmatic and use lots of proprietary applications; everything from splashtop to VMware, Lightworks to other platforms such as MacOSX (including adobe CS5 and many closed-cource proaudio apps). Where you get this idea i am an only opensource guy is beyond me (and makes your notions deserving of ridicule) ~ again, you don't have a frickin' clue as to what you are talking about (at all!). I use the best tools for the job, it does not matter to me, if they are opensource or proprietary... it is nice when they are OSS - because then, if i need to, i can modify them. Yes, i do like OSS - but that doesn't make me a fanboy (if that was what you were implying?) since, in reality, there are very _practical_ reasons to like OSS over proprietary apps.

2. Attacking Nvidia ~ dumbass, I USE nvidia cards in every machine that i own (except one, that i rarely use / laptop), including my Mac and also ALL of my linux machines.. which as a matter of fact ALL are using Nvidia binary driver (latest beta) - you couldn't pay me to use any of the OSS drivers vs. using nvidia blob. ...and to my knowledge i have never 'attacked' nvidia, since i am generally a happy customer and continue to buy their products (as well as recommending them, particularly for linux users whom want good GFX).

3. As far as redhat is concerned, i am *indifferent* to them. Yes, I use CentOS on a few servers at work (Ubuntu server sucked at the time - we tested it out) but i would NEVER use Fedora or Ubuntu on one of my desktops. So your notion that i am (potentially) a redhat fanboy is a bunch of BS. Even our choice to use CentOS at work, was not mine alone and we gave Ubuntu it's fair stake in possibly replacing our linux infrastructure at the time ~ it failed where RHEL / CentOS succeeded... but it still doesn't change the fact that i am indifferent.

So tell me, how exactly did you come to these conclusions about me?? (that have *all* turned out to be entirely incorrect *in every possible way!*) I guess you like to just make shit up about people, but aren't smart enough to realize they can easily set the record straight...

...and again, you didn't address any of my points

[GreatEmerald]

In my book, Ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks. Sorry

If anything, the only distro suitable for non-geeks is Mageia. But this has gone beyond off-topic...

[ninez]

If anything, the only distro suitable for non-geeks is Mageia. But this has gone beyond off-topic...

indeed, it has swung waaay off-topic....

...so the real question is does Magiea offer gtk+ with wayland support, unlike ubuntu?

[asdx]

Do I give a fuck about that? No. You shouldn't as well.

Please don't tell me what I should or should not care.

And please never write any documentation, because I will ridicule you if you do so, and if you make mistakes in them.

[curaga]

Hmm, couldn't users submit those themselves? Or is it that only authors of the patches have the ability to do so?

Yes, users could. It's merely the fact the kernel is not exactly an inviting environment to submit one's first patch, kind of like X. What would an user do if he can't code, and the patch comes back with "fix X, Y and Z"?

The author of the patch is in the best position to submit it.

I wonder why they have not bothered, then? (in this particular case). It's not like those are 'deal-makers/breakers' or offer Ubuntu some huge advantage (or even minor) over XYZ distro.

I don't know any better than you. My best guess is the general lack of doing that in Ubuntu - "if we don't do that for anything else, why bother for these".
The patches mentioned do offer an advantage, from few hundred ms to a second or two faster boot time, depending on hw and initrd size.

If upstream wanted them why wait for Ubuntu to submit? The source code is out there, go get them and implement them. Why does it have to be a one way street? Isn't that the whole point of the GPL?

Yes, the source is out there, and personally I've been using for long now.

But if you're asking why this doesn't happen in general (upstream going around checking forks if they have useful code), it's usually lack of time and interest.

[GreatEmerald]

indeed, it has swung waaay off-topic....

...so the real question is does Magiea offer gtk+ with wayland support, unlike ubuntu?

It's actually a good question. Mageia is usually more conservative when it comes to defaults, but they also tend to have a lot of options if one chooses to tweak them. For instance, I installed it on one netbook just because it's pretty much the only distro I know of that has good Razor-Qt support. So I wouldn't be surprised if they set the Wayland flag on as well.

Yes, users could. It's merely the fact the kernel is not exactly an inviting environment to submit one's first patch, kind of like X. What would an user do if he can't code, and the patch comes back with "fix X, Y and Z"?

The author of the patch is in the best position to submit it.

Yea, that's true. Or the kernel maintainers can do that themselves, although I suppose that going through Ubuntu's patches is not the first idea that pops into mind when trying to deal with an issue...

[Darxus]

The title of this article is wrong: 'Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu'

It didn't get marked "Won't Fix" for all of Ubuntu, as the title says, it got marked "Won't Fix" only for the upcoming Raring release. If you look at the linked bug, its status is still "Confirmed" for Ubuntu.

I opened the bug. Ubuntu's request that the Wayland backend for GTK to be split out to a dynamic library before being included in one of their releases doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me. I just wish they mentioned it six months ago, last time they said they wouldn't include it in a release.

Can't include this in Precise because it's a stable release....
Can't include this in Quantal because it's too late in the release cycle, even though the bug was open before the Precise release....
Can't include this in Raring because it would cause the GTK package to depend on a Wayland package....

This is getting old.

I don't see any problem with the decision at this time. Wayland is not mature or ready for general consumption in any way, so why should they ship GTK with Wayland support? The very few users that like to experiment with Wayland just need to compile/install a Wayland-capable build of GTK. No big deal.

Because shipping GTK with Wayland support will make it a lot easier for a lot more people to test, making it easier to make Wayland more mature and ready for general consumption. I think the process has already provided very useful testing which has found problems I think other distros would agree should be fixed.

I wrote two different build scripts, and most of the Wayland build instructions, to make compiling from source as easy as possible, and increase testing. I still think it's a pain that far fewer people are willing to go through than those who will install a binary package from a default archive.

[I switched from Ubuntu to Debian because of Ubuntu's Amazon ads.]

[ворот93]

Because shipping GTK with Wayland support will make it a lot easier for a lot more people to test, making it easier to make Wayland more mature and ready for general consumption. I think the process has already provided very useful testing which has found problems I think other distros would agree should be fixed.

Ubuntu is not "other distros" and endless "testing" is not the goal of Canonical. They are not going to sacrifice stability or distributiion size for the sake of testers' convenience.

[Darxus]

Ubuntu is not "other distros" and endless "testing" is not the goal of Canonical. They are not going to sacrifice stability or distributiion size for the sake of testers' convenience.

I think you must have misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm not suggesting increasing their iso size or doing anything I believe will sacrifice stability.