05-16-2013, 08:10 PM
Or, ubuntu's MIR have little hope for KWIN and plasma , but no doubt for ubuntu's unity
Originally Posted by valeriodean
And maybe kwin's developer just got reactionary.
05-16-2013, 08:28 PM
I don't have a crystal ball for the record.
I don't know whether Mir or Wayland will hit the desktop in a significant way first.
I have been eagerly anticipating a successor to X11 for years now.
Whoever gives me a workable replacement first will receive my gratitude. I think however the smart money is on Mir for a first to desktop (if less technically perfect).
I stopped using gnome when they decided to remove functions I needed. I stopped using KDE when it became a jumbled mess. So far as a day to day system unity is treating me well (I care about getting work done, not someone's political agenda). KDE and Gnome can continue to develop their versions of perfection, I don't share them. If Mir and Unity 8 work I will use them, otherwise I will look at options. Maybe Mint.
KDE or gnome developer says x is shit... well they develop KDE and Gnome so in my mind they have a few strikes against them, and really I don't care.
05-16-2013, 09:42 PM
1.) well the rest of the post answer the second question why canonical is not trusted by the community in general Mir is just 1 topic but that doesn't mean their are sabotaging them, community just don't care for now due their bumpy track
Originally Posted by alexThunder
2.) what you mean? i used all three API and services file level and systemd is amazingly easy[to be fair gentoo suffer from NIH syndrome too with openrc but they support both], in fact i wrote all my service files after migrating to systemd in gentoo and i was astonished 30 lines and all is working, the boot time is instantaneous and the error report is superb and i save a lot of ram making most of my services on demand and chained[aka nginx start when i open browser and ask for the server, php-fpm start with nginx and mysql is started once php request a query and once activity stops all service go back down]. so would you like to elaborate here?
05-17-2013, 04:44 AM
All he meant was that upstart was started before systemd, which is true. But actually there's no NIH syndrome on any side here. Upstart is a better project than the projects that were available when Upstart was started. Systemd is a better project than the projects that were available (Upstart included) when systemd was started.
Originally Posted by jrch2k8
05-17-2013, 10:02 AM
Actually launchd came before and already was better technology than Upstart.
Originally Posted by erendorn
The Canonical trolls just lied and called launchd non-free software.
05-17-2013, 11:33 AM
launchd relicensing did happen after the decision to create Upstart. And Upstart probably was a convincing technology as it ended up in RHEL and some other mobile Linuxes. Not sure they should have moved (and repackaged) to lanuchd just after finishing and repackaging for Upstart, and then switch and repackage again to systemd (as they should and probably will do at some point).
Originally Posted by Awesomeness
05-17-2013, 02:56 PM
Is really launchd Linux compatible? If they need to fork the actual software either way I don't think it's NIH
05-17-2013, 04:28 PM
Actually, I question myself everyday. It's kind of something I cannot stop doing. I question everything, more or less. But in the end it makes me a stronger person, emotionally.
Originally Posted by BO$$
More to the point, I don't hate Ubuntu. Ubuntu will always have a place in my heart. I also think the 12.04 LTS is a solid release. Heck, when it came out, it was huge, it was the best Ubuntu release ever, everything was so smooth and polished. I updated to it from 10.04 while it was still in beta and never had any issues back then. I actually think there is a lot of good about Ubuntu even now.
Which is why it breaks my heart to see how badly Canonical is messing things up with it now. Things started going to shit with the 12.10 release and have only went downhill since. And since I'm not a fanboy, I was able to just say "ok, I don't like the way this is going anymore. Even though I used and liked this distro before, I can't abide their current direction anymore" and then I moved away from Ubuntu because it's ok to admit when you're wrong, it's ok to admit you've been rooting for the wrong team - or the right team, which later became the wrong team.
So there you have it. I hope you some day learn to question yourself, because to do otherwise leads a path to fundamentalism and blindness. Not literal blindness, but the kind where you purposefully blind yourself to all the flaws of the thing you idolize, and rabidly defend it against any assault, real or imaginary. That's how suicide bombers get started, you know...
05-17-2013, 05:56 PM
So? The old license was already a free one very similar to the lgpl. The relicensing to Apache was because FreeBSD thought about adopting launchd and they preferred a license without copyleft.
Originally Posted by erendorn
05-17-2013, 08:49 PM
Canonical, Breaking Away
I think you picked the wrong reason why Canonical now has a target branded (not painted) on their backs:
Originally Posted by BO$$
Canonical, as you so well noted, is trying to dominate a market. That means dominating/hurting/abusing the very foundation that made them great. Which is what they're after, it seems.
As a newb, I came to Ubuntu because I thought it was (as they so well marketed) for humans, by humans. A community project. This unnecessary separation from the rest of Linux DEs and now Display Servers discards all the humanity.
As I've grown to appreciate the Linux in Ubuntu (the shell, cron, and other features as I learned of them) I started realizing that the Linux I read and the Linux I had were diverging. After I started reading phoronix, I realized after a time that many of these projects would never hit Ubuntu. Never were even considered for Ubuntu. (Then I figured out that the Linux phoronix was reporting on and the Linux found in Github, etc were different, but that's a different story ).
Ubuntu isn't Linux. It's a Linux kernel, but it isn't a Linux project. It shouldn't be covered by Phoronix any more than Android is covered by Phoronix. Its patches should be questioned and reviewed. OSS developers should shift focuses to other distributions first, Ubuntu as a secondary experience. Otherwise, they're hurting OSS, which is opposite why they started developing for Linux projects.
Canonical really broke it, for now. I don't know how Desktop Linux should be repaired, but Linux projects need to market themselves, making note their difference in policy. Canonical needs to break away officially (by their remarks or the community's), because otherwise they'll always be on the verge of breaking away and even more damaging.