10 ms·

Mark & the gang thought they could build something better and so they went for it. Their ideas may be wrong, but they took a stab. Most of those criticizing Mir

by boris 10y ago

Mark & the gang thought they could build something better and so they went for it. Their ideas may be wrong, but they took a stab. Most of those criticizing Mir never go beyond mere talk. That's the main difference to me.

bkor 10y ago
That's a nice change of history. Canonical was behind Wayland. They secretly (for 6-9 months) started working on Mir. This while they said they'd do various amount of work on Wayland. Up to that point they publicly said Wayland is the next thing. After 6-9 they revealed what they worked upon and made loads of incorrect statements about Wayland. Obviously this resulted in pretty harsh response. Wayland is quite usable in Fedora as well as various other distributions, so your "never go beyond talk": eh? This while Canonical delayed Wayland by not announcing they wouldn't help out with Wayland anymore.
- petecox 10y ago
  The Qt-based phone OSes (Sailfish, LuneOS, Tizen, Plasma Mobile) all seem to have adopted Wayland. So the claim that Wayland was unsuitable for mobile seems hollow 4 years on.
simlevesque 10y ago
From my POV, Mark said Mir was better than Wayland without saying how and without delivering. I don't feel like I have anything to criticize except the fact that he wasted his time and set us back in a way. It's not up to me to criticize Mir, since I'm never going to compete against this software. The real question is not: "why is everyone against Mir", it is : "why was Cannonical against Wayland in the first place". The antagonist is not the community, it has always been Cannonical.
cookiecaper 10y ago
Mir, like Unity, was a political play. Canonical keeps trying (and failing) to establish itself as the owner of some core, critical desktop software. Anyone who knows open-source hackers should know that their bullshit detectors are highly attuned to typical political malfeasance, and the transparent overlays of conventional corporate politics are not going to work on them (other approaches would work supremely well; hackers are not invincible). I'm actually worried about Canonical after their repeated political failures. Despite their best efforts, Red Hat continues to stomp all over them, with systemd winning over upstart and now Wayland over Mir. They need to re-evaluate their strategy for land grabs. Do they not have the technical skill on staff to conceptualize technologies that get people on board? Is Red Hat intentionally undermining them (hard sell since most of these projects existed before Ubuntu decided to try to copy and win), and if so, how can they compete?

by boris 10y ago

bkor 10y ago

That's a nice change of history. Canonical was behind Wayland. They secretly (for 6-9 months) started working on Mir. This while they said they'd do various amount of work on Wayland. Up to that point they publicly said Wayland is the next thing. After 6-9 they revealed what they worked upon and made loads of incorrect statements about Wayland. Obviously this resulted in pretty harsh response. Wayland is quite usable in Fedora as well as various other distributions, so your "never go beyond talk": eh? This while Canonical delayed Wayland by not announcing they wouldn't help out with Wayland anymore.

petecox 10y ago
The Qt-based phone OSes (Sailfish, LuneOS, Tizen, Plasma Mobile) all seem to have adopted Wayland. So the claim that Wayland was unsuitable for mobile seems hollow 4 years on.

simlevesque 10y ago

From my POV, Mark said Mir was better than Wayland without saying how and without delivering. I don't feel like I have anything to criticize except the fact that he wasted his time and set us back in a way. It's not up to me to criticize Mir, since I'm never going to compete against this software. The real question is not: "why is everyone against Mir", it is : "why was Cannonical against Wayland in the first place". The antagonist is not the community, it has always been Cannonical.

cookiecaper 10y ago

Mir, like Unity, was a political play. Canonical keeps trying (and failing) to establish itself as the owner of some core, critical desktop software. Anyone who knows open-source hackers should know that their bullshit detectors are highly attuned to typical political malfeasance, and the transparent overlays of conventional corporate politics are not going to work on them (other approaches would work supremely well; hackers are not invincible). I'm actually worried about Canonical after their repeated political failures. Despite their best efforts, Red Hat continues to stomp all over them, with systemd winning over upstart and now Wayland over Mir. They need to re-evaluate their strategy for land grabs. Do they not have the technical skill on staff to conceptualize technologies that get people on board? Is Red Hat intentionally undermining them (hard sell since most of these projects existed before Ubuntu decided to try to copy and win), and if so, how can they compete?