4 ms·

Maybe some existing efforts need help, but I think Wayland is doing fine without Canonical. Either way, shaming developers for choosing to go their own way is t

by ewzimm 10y ago

Maybe some existing efforts need help, but I think Wayland is doing fine without Canonical. Either way, shaming developers for choosing to go their own way is toxic, just as bad as harrassing people for not taking every request on Github. Developing FLOSS can be so stressful because everyone has an idea about what everyone else is supposed to do. Imagine what would have happened if more people had that attitude about Linux developers for not following the GNU Hurd!

jhasse 10y ago
It can be depressing at times, I agree with that. But I think that the majority of "criticism" wasn't shaming Canonical for starting Mir, but rather just asking "Why?". Canonicals answer consisted of many set phrases and things that just weren't true (e. g. "Wayland doesn't work on mobile" - Sailfish?). Don't you think that such a behavior can also be considered "toxic"? IMHO Canonical's reason to start Mir were mostly to be in control. For example via CLAs. I understand it, but they should also understand that many people criticize that.
bkor 10y ago
The criticism is because they didn't just go their way. I have problems with: 1) start of Mir resulted in Canonical not doing some Wayland commitments 2) start of Mir was kept secret for at least 6 months 3) loads of incorrect statements about Wayland that (despite retracting their claims) loads other people still assume is true 4) the reason for doing this has never been clarified 5) it other software to behave buggy. E.g. Wayland on this Ubuntu is problematic (see Phoronix); all kind of problems you won't find on any other distribution. It shouldn't be affected but it is. Wastes time of loads of people by a decision Canonical made without any clear benefit or reason. In brief: People are _not_ being toxic. There are various very good reasons to question the decision.

by ewzimm 10y ago

jhasse 10y ago

It can be depressing at times, I agree with that. But I think that the majority of "criticism" wasn't shaming Canonical for starting Mir, but rather just asking "Why?". Canonicals answer consisted of many set phrases and things that just weren't true (e. g. "Wayland doesn't work on mobile" - Sailfish?). Don't you think that such a behavior can also be considered "toxic"? IMHO Canonical's reason to start Mir were mostly to be in control. For example via CLAs. I understand it, but they should also understand that many people criticize that.

bkor 10y ago

The criticism is because they didn't just go their way. I have problems with: 1) start of Mir resulted in Canonical not doing some Wayland commitments 2) start of Mir was kept secret for at least 6 months 3) loads of incorrect statements about Wayland that (despite retracting their claims) loads other people still assume is true 4) the reason for doing this has never been clarified 5) it other software to behave buggy. E.g. Wayland on this Ubuntu is problematic (see Phoronix); all kind of problems you won't find on any other distribution. It shouldn't be affected but it is. Wastes time of loads of people by a decision Canonical made without any clear benefit or reason. In brief: People are _not_ being toxic. There are various very good reasons to question the decision.