Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
Hmm, does XMir/XWayland start just one X server, or one X server per app? Or can it do it both ways?
The X server inside shouldn't be aware of Mir, so it probably starts only one server.

Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
I love how you've made this decision based on the results of one guy with one peice of hardware on one a forum on the internet. That's such a huge sample size. N=1 is total significant. Let's just pretend that Michael's results and that video don't count as evidence.
It's still useless to do so, and that doesn't depend on samplesize. It's useless because, in the best possible case, starting an X server on other display platform can achieve the same performance as X, if using the whole set of features (like handling composition and such), while it doesn't provide any advantage, since you are running everything from inside this X server. You make no use of any Mir or Wayland provided advantage this way.

Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
Yeah, but if Canonical allow the user to install a single GPLv3 licensed app, then they have to give the user the ability to replace that app with a modified version. So they would have to remove/filter all GPLv3 software out of the Ubuntu Software Centre if they want to be able to ship a completely locked down device.
That's as easy as changing the repos. It still uses apt IIRC.

Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
Not necessarily. if you actually look at the architecture of XWayland and XMir you actually avoid a few expensive steps at the end vs real X. In theory, its possible for us to have slightly better performance via XMir and XWayland than Real X. But obviously an alpha-quality release won't have the optimizations and design to actually make that claim true just yet.
I don't think that's true when running a full-fledged desktop on top of it.

Quote Originally Posted by spacetoilet View Post
BO$$ you really need to stop sucking off Canonical

Redhat Intel Raspberry pi Kubuntu Debian Carsten Munk Tizen Sailfish OS and any non Ubuntu Unity is backing Wayland most of the code in Mir is just a fork of Wayland Android Carsten Munk work Libhybris making it even more buggy shitty you dont know how long it's going to take to remove all the bug's form Mir it may take years do to it trying to move away form the code it's based off from and it's the most Epic Fail of the Linux World Wayland the way Canonical is going is why i jumped ship it's going to be really bad for any one Developing on Linux Canonical just Fucked all Linux Develpers Linux Gamers Linux Users do you know how hard it is going to be to get Windows Developers to look at Linux now?


Can you use periods and commas, please? It's really hard to make any sense of what you wrote this way.

Quote Originally Posted by seb24 View Post
And that relates how?

Quote Originally Posted by TheOne View Post
I have a big query.

If Canonical just copy/pasted the XWayland code to make XMir then every person saying that XWayland will be faster that plain X is utterly wrong. We haven't seen any benchmarks regarding XWayland/Wayland, so if XMir is really a copy/paste effort Wayland should be similarly on the same shape.
The people who says XWayland will be faster than plain X means using it for apps. Running a desktop implies a lot more work on the X.org server inside that you can ignore otherwise. You are having window management, compositing, etc, inside the X.org server. When you use it for an app, the app inside the server will behave (if I get it right) somewhat as a fullscreen window in a non-compositing environment, and all the real management will happen outside the X.org server, being done by either Wayland or Mir. So you avoid lots of operations. Of course a whole desktop running on XWayland will be slower than at least a native desktop on Wayland, and almost certainly than a desktop on X.
And the same way XWayland could be faster than X for particular apps it's likely that, assuming Mir will be faster than X, XMir will be faster than X for particular apps. Whole desktops are out of scope for XMir and XWayland for common sense. There is no reason to not use X if you are going to use an X desktop, since you will be unable to load Mir or Wayland apps.

Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
I'm curious about performance. Native Wayland and native Mir application. Games especially.
If you want a demo of it, I plan to port a Wolfenstein 3D (seriously, I mean it, I know it's not a really advanced game, but it uses OpenGL) to Wayland. I might add Mir, for the sake of an early comparison, at least until someone serious (a professional) decides its engine should run on both Mir and Wayland).

Quote Originally Posted by seb24 View Post
Stop fighting... The both project are free software with different objective. We should be happy to have a dynamic eco-system. that's it.
And we will see in the future how the 2 project will evolves.
Nope, the problem is they actually seem to share the same objective.

Quote Originally Posted by seb24 View Post
No "version" history here.
If your "contribution" is in the Version 2 they have the obligation to publish it in the original licence + other sub-licence.
No, they don't. They already published your submission as GPLv3 in version 1, fulfilling their promise. Your contribution has been released with the license the project had when you submitted, so they can sublicense. Version 2 can use the sublicensed version of your code, so they have no obligation to release it with the original one.

Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
So the difference is that, with Mir, only one company could possibly make a proprietary version, whilst with Wayland, every company can make a proprietary version. Neither solution is optimal for open source, but I'm not seeing why the latter would be better.
None is better for every scenario. The latter is only more equal, since it gives exactly the same rights to everyone, while the other allows only Canonical or their partners to work on closed derivatives. For a start, this means Mir can use Wayland's code (and it does) but not the other way around.

Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
Changing the license of Mir won't eliminate GPLv3 software from Ubuntu Touch.
No, it doesn't. MIT licensed forks doesn't, either. Both cases, though, allow to use the codebase without releasing the changes. One of them, equally for everyone who wants this, and the other only if Canonical lets you.

Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
Again, wrong. No plans for Mir migration until 14.04 at the earliest.
Read the news, Unity will be running on XMir by default for 13.10.

Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
So yes mir got coded faster because wayland + community did all the massive heavy lifting while canonical waited[without 1 freaking commit] until it was good enough for them to start and in some cases take solutions from wayland code[read their bazaar and wayland git and you will see some funny things in there]
Actually, they have ONE commit on XWayland, it was in may 2012 IIRC. There was a Phoronix article about it.

Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
* MUCH faster development
At the cost of being a Unity only solution. That's the sole reason it develops faster.
* Supposed to get Android driver support
Over Wayland? It achieves this using a library developed for Wayland.
* A seemingly more devoted team
* A fully open source license
Both have a fully open source license. In fact, it's easier (i.e., you don't need anyone's permission) to fork Wayland on a closed source project. With Mir you can, if Canonical allows you, because of the CLA, but you can't without their permission, because of the GPL license.
* Probably will be more light-weight in the end
I don't know what is this based in. Any of the two might be the lighter one. Wayland because of being just the protocol, or Mir because of only implementing what Unity needs, instead of having to be usable for the whole ecosystem.

Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
You misunderstand. Unity will run on Mir. XMir is a compatibility layer that will be used to run old X11 applications that aren't written using a modern toolkit.
No, you are ignoring quite a few news. Unity will run on XMir for 13.10, and at the moment it seems flavors will run on XMir, at least eventually. WMs at the very least need to be aware of the display architecture they run on, can't target the toolkit only.

Brief version: 13.10 will ship Mir by default, with Unity 7 running on XMir.

I wonder how do people manage to turn that into "Canonical will not ship Mir until 14.10", when it clearly says it will ship it (READ THE TITLE) in 13.10, and will use Unity 8 on 14.04, which runs natively on Mir.