Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: The Developers Behind The Mir Display Server

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Doesn't this also mean the display server gets 'less important' because it doesn't do that much any more, at least compared to X11?

    On one side it talks to established driver+kernel APIs, and on the other to toolkits like Qt for applications (very simplified, I guess). And as you say, Mir would probably do the same thing. So I'm still not conviced about all the fragmentation doomsday talk. One would probably be able to switch display servers like today we switch DEs?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibidem View Post
    And that helps us how when it isn't any more? (link)
    Not that that's a good argument in itself, I know.
    Yeah, it can easily be brought back if anyone's interested in running or maintaining it; it's right there in the history, it's not like it was magically unexisted or anything. But it turns out that not too many people start from the point of 'let's take AOSP and brutally bash in half of a GNU-based userland, except for the Bionic bits we need'. Forking AOSP to support that is also viciously painful, so it's a bit of a red herring really. One of those things that sounds appealing on paper, until you actually try to do it.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not.sure View Post
    Doesn't this also mean the display server gets 'less important' because it doesn't do that much any more, at least compared to X11?

    On one side it talks to established driver+kernel APIs, and on the other to toolkits like Qt for applications (very simplified, I guess). And as you say, Mir would probably do the same thing. So I'm still not conviced about all the fragmentation doomsday talk. One would probably be able to switch display servers like today we switch DEs?
    It seems it would need different driver API, and different toolkit implementations (effectively to do the same thing).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Wow, X.Org folks are having a butthurt. Time to grab popcorn.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HoboJ View Post
    I cannot see how this will be successful without driver support from the big 3. Unless by chance they already have support from AMD, Intel and Nvidia. The madness coming from the Canonical camp just never ceases to amaze me.
    Ubuntu Linux shares > all other versions of Linux.

    Which one do you think the developers will flock too? Ubuntu drives Linux development, and Linux wouldn't be in the state its in if it weren't for Ubuntu bringing Linux to the consumer.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    Ubuntu Linux shares > all other versions of Linux.

    Which one do you think the developers will flock too? Ubuntu drives Linux development, and Linux wouldn't be in the state its in if it weren't for Ubuntu bringing Linux to the consumer.
    +1. Canonical alone is responsible for getting Valve on board. Gabe would rather promote Macs than talk to and bargain with a myriad of small Linux communities.

    So yeah, screw "the ecosystem". Canonical is making a point here: Ubuntu is not a "distro", it is an independent operating system with its own homegrown solutions.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    +1. Canonical alone is responsible for getting Valve on board. Gabe would rather promote Macs than talk to and bargain with a myriad of small Linux communities.

    So yeah, screw "the ecosystem". Canonical is making a point here: Ubuntu is not a "distro", it is an independent operating system with its own homegrown solutions.
    Yeah, screw the ecosystem, including Debian, and let us see where Ubuntu stands after that. They will have an init system (that now is planned to use parts of systemd, the ecosystem), one shell that is not working without software from the ecosystem and plans for a display server, nothing else.
    I can see how independent they really are.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    293

    Default

    wait, we have that code licensed under gpl, allowing everybody to do exactly what ubuntu is doing and now we are blaming them to do what was allowed them to do?

    sounds logic to me.

    i can understand the complaints but i cannot undestand the level and most arguments i read are pure nonsense.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    +1. Canonical alone is responsible for getting Valve on board. Gabe would rather promote Macs than talk to and bargain with a myriad of small Linux communities.

    So yeah, screw "the ecosystem". Canonical is making a point here: Ubuntu is not a "distro", it is an independent operating system with its own homegrown solutions.
    Yeah, they're better/more/different than everyone else.....

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Yeah, screw the ecosystem, including Debian, and let us see where Ubuntu stands after that. They will have an init system (that now is planned to use parts of systemd, the ecosystem), one shell that is not working without software from the ecosystem and plans for a display server, nothing else.
    I can see how independent they really are.
    Canonical takes the best for its needs and complies with the license. Whiners can GTFO.

Posting Permissions

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