Anyways:Yeah, for sure, Mir with wildly copy and pasting and flicking it together is by far more professional than first defining a well thought out protocol that everyone can use. You must be kidding.Wayland, watching its progress, seems amateurish at best.
Only that you get it backwards, the Wayland developers are the professionals, with years of experience with Linux display servers, while Canonical hired the amateurs that weren't even able to analyze Wayland correctly and came up with non-existing technical reasons why they can't use it.As much as it sucks to admit it, sometimes corporations do deliver better results than amateurs.
Clutter and QT have full Wayland support, EFL and GTK+ are almost complete and SDL is on it's way. And they have XWayland witch is further ahead then XMir. Mir has XMir. It is also to early to declare a victor, or the demise of any of the two. You simply seam to be forcasting the future from a biased/incomplete view.
Last edited by AJenbo; 07-09-2013 at 09:03 PM.
How does Mir help in the *current* fragmentation of the Linux desktop? Well, considering it's mostly toolkits (which Canonical said will be supported *both* by Mir) and audio (which has not much to do with either display system), it does not help.
How does Mir prevents fragmentation? Taking into account it doesn't help on the toolkits side, but adds a new backend, it doesn't help, but creates new problems.
So, nope, it doesn't help, I'm sorry.
DEs is not the problem. As long as they support a common standard (hint: they do, read ICCCM and EWMH for more information), apps are treated the same way. Both the looks and the extra, unneeded, disk and memory use, come from the toolkits.
So, the problem you mention is in the toolkits side. And since they are supposed to be supported on Mir, Mir doesn't help to avoid this fragmentation.
I don't really care what tool kit is used to program, as long as it looks consistent and runs decent.