6 ms·

Why not both? I want to use Mir instead of Wayland, who are you to tell me what to use?

by j0lly 10y ago

addicted 10y ago
I see you've been downvoted, but the hatred towards Mir (instead of Wayland!) in a world where there are a million Linux distributions, and the idea that you could always switch to a different app/driver/OS/distribution/window manager/etc. has always been pushed as a strength of the platform clearly indicates that there was more to it, whether the people who hated on Mir knew it or not.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  There are strong voices clamoring for a single, canonical (heh) distro. Or if not a single distro then a system for isolating the particulars of any odd distro from the mind of the "app" (groan) developers.
  - addicted 10y ago
    But they're almost certainly a fraction of those that spoke loudly against Mir. [Unless the Mir haters are not as large in number, but merely a lot louder]
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      In recent years i wonder if the net has become the playground of "griefers". Meaning people that exploit the pseudonymity of the net to sling vitriol at any and all topics that catch their attention. Thus it becomes hard to tell how many are actually in disagreement. It may well have started with Anonymous, but turned nasty somewhere around Gamersgate.
  - pekk 10y ago
    Or maybe instead of a distro, we could define certain conventions for interoperability that all distributions had to follow. We could call it the "Linux Standard Base." But looking into my crystal ball, it might not work out well if certain companies flex too much control to define the Linux Standard Base as being essentially their own distribution without any real compromise.
sametmax 10y ago
You can have both if both eventually exists. The problem is that a graphic server is a really hard software to make, integrate and maintain. We kept X for decades for this reason. Trying to build and make a standard of a new one is hard enough. Spending resources for a 3rd one, that we all knew has less chance of succeeding, was considered a waste by many. As a community, some like me analyzed that Mir was a bad strategic move and just said it. There is nothing wrong with expressing this opinion. It's not stealing your freedom away. Turns out we were right. Mir was too big of a project to chew for canonical, and the effort, that could have been invested in getting a better wayland sooner, was wasted. This is a repeating problem in open source. It's hard to find the balance between innovation and playing as a team. Given the fantastic track record of canonical though, we can't blame them. They tried. I'm glad they have this spirit, they made the Linux desktop better. I'm also glad the Mir fad is over.
- justin66 10y ago
  Fragmentation isn't just a repeating problem in open source, it's a repeating problem for Unix.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > Fragmentation I have learned to hate this term. Sometimes it means choice other times it means different solutions to the same problem. I much rather have choice then be placed in a box. > repeating problem in open source, it's a repeating problem for Unix Since Open Source and Linux aka *Unix has won I fail to see your point. The big issue was they went with their own solution and didn't add to Wayland which is something they could have done this wasn't fragmentation. "When Mir was started we needed a mechanism for client-server communications (and Wayland wasn’t in the state it is today). We did something that worked well enough (libmirclient) and, because it’s just a small, intentionally isolated part of the whole, we could change later."
    - sametmax 10y ago
      But there is such a thing as the paradox of choices. This is a big problem on Linux because if you want to do a software, you first have to handle this diversity for UI, bus communication, configuration storage, dir layouts, init systems, packaging... It's a nightmare. Compare to releasing the same thing for windows or mac. Starting Mir after and if investing on Wayland failed would have been much wiser.
Qantourisc 10y ago
Personally I would say, we have little room for it. Not to mention commercial driver vendors ...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
baldfat 10y ago
Because we see that Wayland is an extremely difficult project that takes the community as a whole to make it the best. Why do we need multiple of projects (By developers) to replace one project (X 11)? This has taken 10 years longer then it should have already and Mir doesn't have a declared reason why to separate from the community and do it's own alternative and how it would help all of Linux.
gribbly 10y ago
No one prevented Canonical from making Mir, hence it's existence. Likewise no one outside Canonical bothered to support Mir, because it offered no advantages over Wayland. If you want to use Mir, go ahead, that doesn't mean anyone owes you support.
bluGill 10y ago
You can use whatever you want. However as a framework/window manager maintainer I have to make a choice. Adding support for one takes years: I do not have time to add a second. I choose wayland because the people behind wayland worked on X for years and designed wayland to fix real design issues in X (as opposed to imagined design issues in X which most previous X replacements looked at), so I trust them. I don't have any reason to believe the people behind mir know what they are doing. Sure you can use both, but if you choose mir you are limited to just the applications ubuntu chooses to provide. If you choose wayland, you get almost everything else because all the toolkits all choose wayland. * I'm not actually a framework or window manager maintainer. I follow their blogs though, and this is essentially what they say.

Why not both? I want to use Mir instead of Wayland, who are you to tell me what to use?

by j0lly 10y ago

Why not both? I want to use Mir instead of Wayland, who are you to tell me what to use?

I see you've been downvoted, but the hatred towards Mir (instead of Wayland!) in a world where there are a million Linux distributions, and the idea that you could always switch to a different app/driver/OS/distribution/window manager/etc. has always been pushed as a strength of the platform clearly indicates that there was more to it, whether the people who hated on Mir knew it or not.

digi_owl 10y ago
There are strong voices clamoring for a single, canonical (heh) distro. Or if not a single distro then a system for isolating the particulars of any odd distro from the mind of the "app" (groan) developers.
- addicted 10y ago
  But they're almost certainly a fraction of those that spoke loudly against Mir. [Unless the Mir haters are not as large in number, but merely a lot louder]
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    In recent years i wonder if the net has become the playground of "griefers". Meaning people that exploit the pseudonymity of the net to sling vitriol at any and all topics that catch their attention. Thus it becomes hard to tell how many are actually in disagreement. It may well have started with Anonymous, but turned nasty somewhere around Gamersgate.
- pekk 10y ago
  Or maybe instead of a distro, we could define certain conventions for interoperability that all distributions had to follow. We could call it the "Linux Standard Base." But looking into my crystal ball, it might not work out well if certain companies flex too much control to define the Linux Standard Base as being essentially their own distribution without any real compromise.

sametmax 10y ago

You can have both if both eventually exists. The problem is that a graphic server is a really hard software to make, integrate and maintain. We kept X for decades for this reason. Trying to build and make a standard of a new one is hard enough. Spending resources for a 3rd one, that we all knew has less chance of succeeding, was considered a waste by many. As a community, some like me analyzed that Mir was a bad strategic move and just said it. There is nothing wrong with expressing this opinion. It's not stealing your freedom away. Turns out we were right. Mir was too big of a project to chew for canonical, and the effort, that could have been invested in getting a better wayland sooner, was wasted. This is a repeating problem in open source. It's hard to find the balance between innovation and playing as a team. Given the fantastic track record of canonical though, we can't blame them. They tried. I'm glad they have this spirit, they made the Linux desktop better. I'm also glad the Mir fad is over.

justin66 10y ago
Fragmentation isn't just a repeating problem in open source, it's a repeating problem for Unix.
- baldfat 10y ago
  > Fragmentation I have learned to hate this term. Sometimes it means choice other times it means different solutions to the same problem. I much rather have choice then be placed in a box. > repeating problem in open source, it's a repeating problem for Unix Since Open Source and Linux aka *Unix has won I fail to see your point. The big issue was they went with their own solution and didn't add to Wayland which is something they could have done this wasn't fragmentation. "When Mir was started we needed a mechanism for client-server communications (and Wayland wasn’t in the state it is today). We did something that worked well enough (libmirclient) and, because it’s just a small, intentionally isolated part of the whole, we could change later."
  - sametmax 10y ago
    But there is such a thing as the paradox of choices. This is a big problem on Linux because if you want to do a software, you first have to handle this diversity for UI, bus communication, configuration storage, dir layouts, init systems, packaging... It's a nightmare. Compare to releasing the same thing for windows or mac. Starting Mir after and if investing on Wayland failed would have been much wiser.

Qantourisc 10y ago

Personally I would say, we have little room for it. Not to mention commercial driver vendors ...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

baldfat 10y ago

Because we see that Wayland is an extremely difficult project that takes the community as a whole to make it the best. Why do we need multiple of projects (By developers) to replace one project (X 11)? This has taken 10 years longer then it should have already and Mir doesn't have a declared reason why to separate from the community and do it's own alternative and how it would help all of Linux.

gribbly 10y ago

No one prevented Canonical from making Mir, hence it's existence. Likewise no one outside Canonical bothered to support Mir, because it offered no advantages over Wayland. If you want to use Mir, go ahead, that doesn't mean anyone owes you support.

bluGill 10y ago

You can use whatever you want. However as a framework/window manager maintainer I have to make a choice. Adding support for one takes years: I do not have time to add a second. I choose wayland because the people behind wayland worked on X for years and designed wayland to fix real design issues in X (as opposed to imagined design issues in X which most previous X replacements looked at), so I trust them. I don't have any reason to believe the people behind mir know what they are doing. Sure you can use both, but if you choose mir you are limited to just the applications ubuntu chooses to provide. If you choose wayland, you get almost everything else because all the toolkits all choose wayland. * I'm not actually a framework or window manager maintainer. I follow their blogs though, and this is essentially what they say.