Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: X.Org vs. XMir On KDE, Xfce, Unity Desktops

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verde View Post
    I think there are fundamental differences between Mir and Wayland (like compositor)
    Yes, there are, actually. The fundamental difference is this: Mir is a display server, a single software made by Canonical, for Canonical. Whereas, Wayland is a protocol which enables the creation of compositors, which may or may not be display servers, a protocol made by the community for the community.

    and the "extension" way Wayland responded to Mir's features seams like another Xorg situation.
    What? Do you even know what you're talking about? How exactly do you think Wayland has "responded" to "Mir's features" in any way? Considering, A) Wayland is much older than Mir, B) Mir wouldn't be possible without all the work done by Wayland developers, and C) Wayland is still ahead in schedule compared to Mir. Please explain.

    If you refer to Shuttleworth's comment on how "Wayland is bad because extensions", that's a total red herring - Mark doesn't understand tech, he's basically a PR guy. Not saying there's anything wrong about that, but one should know one's strenghts and weaknesses. Wayland allows extensions, yes, but that actually only prevents fragmentation - it ensures that no company will need to fork the entire protocol to suit their needs, they can just use extensions. And it's very hypocritical of Mark to complain about "extensions hurting compatibility" when Canonical has no intention of maintaining any kind of compatibility for Mir...

    Plus that is clear now how much behind would Ubuntu touch been if they where waiting for Wayland to work the way they wanted.
    How is that clear? Jolla is releasing their first Sailfish phone by the end of this year, and it will use Wayland. Meanwhile we still don't have even an estimated release date for a native Ubuntu phone. So why exactly could Ubuntu not have used Wayland in their phone, again?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Wayland allows extensions, yes, but that actually only prevents fragmentation - it ensures that no company will need to fork the entire protocol to suit their needs, they can just use extensions. And it's very hypocritical of Mark to complain about "extensions hurting compatibility" when Canonical has no intention of maintaining any kind of compatibility for Mir...
    I don't think his argument was about compatibility. Of course, compatibility wise there is no way to misunderstand the fact creating a whole different solution will almost surely break compatibility more than using extensions. I think he says the extensions will lead to a system that gets in the way and such. If that's what he meant, well, the fact the core protocol keeps lean makes for better modularity. X's problem wasn't that it allowed for extensions, but that it included in the core protocol way too many things, which might have been something good back in the day, but is an obsolete and bad approach for today (specially because then you have to support all of this cruft because of legacy, you can not break compatibility with X protocol and still be X).
    Mir is actually going the X way, if they are against extensions, since every change will end up in a fatty Mir server. I don't think they'll handle it that way in the end, but Mark's complain makes it sound like that.

Posting Permissions

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