Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 141

Thread: GNOME Will Move Full-Speed With Wayland Support

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Well it seems that when the power of bitchyness is greater than the power of collaboration to get things done. It really feels like a reactionary move done almost as much out of spite than for technical reasons. Seriously it took canonical saying "your solution isn't good enough, we're rolling our own" for gnome to get off it's arse and actually get wayland support under way. How long would it have taken if canonical had instead depended on gnome doing it in their own time? Certainly too long to be of use for a mobile platform that's launching in October. And from what i've seen, canonical's contributions would be turned down only for the equivalent functionality to be re-implemented in an incompatible way about 2 years after they'd be of use to anyone (notifications anyone?)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mangecoeur View Post
    Well it seems that when the power of bitchyness is greater than the power of collaboration to get things done. It really feels like a reactionary move done almost as much out of spite than for technical reasons. Seriously it took canonical saying "your solution isn't good enough, we're rolling our own" for gnome to get off it's arse and actually get wayland support under way. How long would it have taken if canonical had instead depended on gnome doing it in their own time? Certainly too long to be of use for a mobile platform that's launching in October. And from what i've seen, canonical's contributions would be turned down only for the equivalent functionality to be re-implemented in an incompatible way about 2 years after they'd be of use to anyone (notifications anyone?)
    Great to distort history, but that is not how things happened. In case you want to learn and not just troll, read my previous messages.

    In brief: "Canonical: We go to Wayland". GNOME makes several trials. Then Canonical does not communicate and changes direction without informing.

    Canonical is the one not communicating here and keeping things private. Wtf with calling GNOME reactionary? Note that we already have done loads of work for Wayland.

    PS: Wayland != GNOME.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    Regardless of whether you prefer wayland or mir, both are currently lacking a certain amount of what some would call essential functionality in comparison to X. Off the top of my head:
    - Multi-GPU support
    - Hybrid laptop (PowerXpress, Optimus) support
    - modeswitching API
    - multi-display API
    These are obviously not insurmountable, but still a lot of work. Just something to keep in mind.
    I don't have any Idea how this works and how it is implemented but Weston works with two displays for me.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    - Hybrid laptop (PowerXpress, Optimus) support
    I am pretty sure even X doesn't have that, or did Torvald cursing Nvidia actually had an effect I never heard of ? Cause if yes, I want the solution, my thinkpad would appreciate it. =p

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    Wtf with calling GNOME reactionary? Note that we already have done loads of work for Wayland.

    PS: Wayland != GNOME.
    I thought it was well established that GNOME just can't win. A strawman is always convenient.

    I've tried to follow most of the discussions regardign the move but here's what I still don't get:
    Which single component requires the most work for GNOME to default to Wayland in something not overly conservative but aimed at a large number of users, like Fedora? Is it the protocol? Weston (even relevant?)? Mutter? Gtk? or something else?
    Last edited by Kostas; 03-13-2013 at 10:44 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iniudan View Post
    I am pretty sure even X doesn't have that, or did Torvald cursing Nvidia actually had an effect I never heard of ? Cause if yes, I want the solution, my thinkpad would appreciate it. =p
    It's not perfect, but things like bumblebee make it workable.

    X gets lots of flack (some of it justified, much of it not), but it has loads of functionality which is extremely useful in corner cases, and which some of us need. Wayland is aiming at covering the most common use cases first, before tackling such stuff. So I expect X to be a factor for a long time to come.

    I don't know how exactly this is handled, but I can not use a system without working multi-seat. This requires multi-seat aware login manager and multi-seat aware input handling. I don't think that this works in Wayland right now, or that it is much of a priority. Just one example.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kostas View Post
    I've tried to follow most of the discussions regardign the move but here's what I still don't get:
    Which single component requires the most work for GNOME to default to Wayland in something not overly conservative but aimed at a large number of users, like Fedora? Is it the protocol? Weston (even relevant?)? Mutter? Gtk? or something else?
    There is not just a single component that can make GNOME work under Wayland. If one is adjusted and the rest is not, the result is failure. That is why we release things together. At the moment the full plan is still being made. This is logical as the email only went to release-team, there actually is no decision at this time as we (as release team) did not announce anything. We generally do not dictate things amongst the GNOME developers and try to get consensus.

    If you want to see what needs to be done: https://live.gnome.org/Wayland

    It has a list of applications and if they work on Wayland or not. It also lists all the things that needs to be done.

    High level speaking the most critical components are: Mutter, GTK+. Everything is being investigated and written down on above link.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    That's odd, because Canonical did the same thing with Unity: Developed it internally, never communicated.

    We had a design hackfest where Canonical did their own meetings.

    So interesting that you seem to have more knowledge about this... care to cite your references?
    First of all, thanks for all your great work on Gnome. It is highly appreciated! I have to admit that I did not follow the process around Canonical's relationship with Gnome prior to the start of Unity closely, but I did catch some reports and impressions around the Internet. Firstly, Ubuntu seemed to do wonders for the Gnome desktop with numerous patches, the most prominent Gnome version in this respect I believe is in Ubuntu 10.04. These patches seemed to have a hard time being accepted upstream in Gnome (again my perception, I did not follow this process closely). Could you shed some light on this? Did Canonical have a hard time getting their improvements accepted upstream in Gnome2?

  9. #39

    Default

    Is it me or ever since Canonical announced the Mir display server, everyone else seems to be doubling down on implementing Wayland support?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Is it me or ever since Canonical announced the Mir display server, everyone else seems to be doubling down on implementing Wayland support?
    Doubling down with words at least.

Posting Permissions

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