Originally Posted by F i L
Steam works fine on my Gentoo system. For some reason it doesn't detect the S3TC extension on OSS drivers though; but hey, I'm running git versions of almost everything .
Back on topic : I read the post on G+, and as an avid follower of Wayland, I still call bullshit on their reasons. (referenced as on the G+ page) :
1) X is old and crappy to work with. Seems to be the consensus.
2) "We didn't want to use Weston." The reference compositor is reference for a reason. You do your own after that. In fact, rolling your own compositor could help highlight some deficiencies in Wayland.
3) "At the time Mir was started, Wayland's input handling was basically non-existent." So starting from scratch instead of helping out seemed like a good idea... Deep Thought Material.
4) "We need server-side buffer allocation for ARM hardware; for various reasons we want server-side buffer allocation everywhere." Can't comment, no idea there.
5) "We want the minimum possible complexity; we ideally want something tailored exactly to our requirements, with no surplus code." First, this isn't going to happen, a Wayland-like product will eventually grow out of it. Second, if it does happen, you'll be the only users of Mir...
If I'm wrong somewhere, come at me...
Oh, and I hate blueberries
Well, the funny thing is that for the type of distro Arch is, it is fairly popular. It's target group is power users, not casual users. But, let me say a couple of things:
Originally Posted by BO$$
1)Arstechnica has gone downhill. Most of the people writting there don't know shit. That is the reason i never visit it anymore...
2) There is no instability because of the rolling release model. None. Zero. The guys saying this crap are useless n00bs who shouldn't use a distro for power users anyway...
3) No sane desktop user/gamer will stay on 12.04 for 5 years. It is too much, because there will be no real updates, just security fixes. You wouldn't like to use a 5 year old web browser, would you?
Except that it is not property.... You get that, right?
Originally Posted by e8hffff
I find it interesting that Canonical are all but openly saying that NVIDIA and AMD are on board - that's what all the insinuations about "Graphics vendors have been happy to engage and ensure it works well on all architectures" and "our engagements with NVIDIA and AMD" are about - but I haven't seen a single public statement from NVIDIA or AMD yet. If I were Mark I'd be a lot more careful about that. People are always happy to sound as positive as possible in negotiations, right up until the point they have to commit to doing stuff that will cost them money...
Blueberries are disgusting and actively harmful to human health. Go join your friends in AL QAIDA.
Originally Posted by aironeous
Now that isn't true. A rolling release is more likely to find regressions quicker then a periodical release. It's just the nature of the beast. I am not however saying that regressions don't happen in periodical releases either because they do as well it is just that you don't see them as often as on a system with upgraditis.
Originally Posted by TemplarGR
If they keep this up, I will run out of both popcorn and peanuts.
Mainly, FSF is a non-profit which specifically exists to further the cause of free software. Canonical is a private company: the only thing you can absolutely trust it to do is act in its own interests. Which you don't really know what they are. So assigning copyright to Canonical is a very different act from assigning it to FSF.
Originally Posted by brent
Two, people don't really care about the FSF copyright assignment because there's no particular reason ever to use it. You don't even have to if you want to be a GNU project, which mostly people don't care about any more anyway. I don't even remember the last prominent new GNU project. It used to be useful to be a GNU project to get hosting and promotion and stuff, but that was at least a decade ago...
(edit: now I read up on it, you don't even have to assign copyright to the FSF to be a GNU project. You can choose to do so or not.)
(edit2: in the case of existing GNU projects which are still important, also see What Rahul Said.)
Last edited by AdamW; 03-11-2013 at 03:19 PM.
Nope. You are just confusing bleeding edge release with rolling release... A distro can be rolling release and not bleeding edge.
Originally Posted by deanjo
I agree that a bleeding edge release is more likely to find regressions, but most of the time they are fixable. And those that need such a distro have the will and the knowledge to do so.
On the other hand, a rolling release isn't obliged to throw untested code to stable branches... Ubuntu could be rolling release, and have all updates tested properly before deployed... Nothing would change for the end user, except that his system would be more up-to-date especially for apps, and that he wouldn't have the need to dist-upgrade every 6 months...
Rolling release doesn't mean "up to date" either.
Originally Posted by TemplarGR