4 ms·

"Spending resources for a 3rd one" 1. Doubling the number of people on a project does not double the speed of its production. It may actually hurt matters. Thi

by pekk 9y ago

"Spending resources for a 3rd one" 1. Doubling the number of people on a project does not double the speed of its production. It may actually hurt matters. This is the classic problem of estimating with man-hours and ignoring coordination costs 2. They aren't your resources to spend. Canonical doesn't tell Red Hat what it can do, so why the other way around?

sametmax 9y ago
> Doubling the number of people on a project does not double the speed of its production. Resources are not just for dev. You have documentation, integration, adaptation of dependencies, packaging... But even if you just don't spend the resources on wayland nor mir, then you can use them for stuff the users want. Like fixing external monitor handling, wifi and battery life . Having basic features working on your project should be a more important priority than building an alternative compositor anyway. Even more when one is already on it's way and in good shape. > They aren't your resources to spend. Canonical doesn't tell Red Hat what it can do, so why the other way around? Just because they aren't my resource doesn't mean I can't express my view on it. I'm not actively preventing canonical to do anything. But as an Ubuntu user with priorities, as an active member of the community doing bug reports and trying beta software, as an Ubuntu evangelist spending personal time to sell Ubuntu/install it/maintain it on my relative laptops and as somebody who gives financial support to the project, it's fair that I express my thoughts on the matter. I don't even know why I have to tell that to you. It should be obvious. It's a community. Communities communicate. Also since, me and the others like me, where right about it (that mir would fail and waste resources), I'd say I wished we would have been listened to. I'm not playing the blame game. I'm certainly not questioning Canonical competence and I'm not angry at them. I love the company and the product. I just happen to disagree with their politic on this particular decision. I'm now very glad they choose to invest in wayland. I will miss unity, which was a project I liked. So it's a not just about "reinventing the wheel" and "competition". I like gnome shell less than unity, but I think it's a good decision to work on it instead for the community.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 9y ago
Your point 1 is wrong. The original quote is "adding people to a late project makes it latter". This quote is true, but it only applies to late projects. A project that is not late is in a more complex situation, and can often benefit from adding more people. Once you pay the price to get everyone up to speed they can all contribute which in many cases can double the long term speed. There is of course a limit, eventually you get too many people, but Wayland is not in danger of that. I believe Wayland would be better off with triple the team size long term. It would let them fix numerous bus problems, allow more code review, and speed them up. I would gladly take slower progress short term to get faster progress long term. Unfortunately code like wayland demands the best programmers. A .01% speed increase in many parts is noticeable to the end users. There are tons of bugs in graphics drivers (and hardware) that have to be worked around at the wayland level. There are many variations of what the hardware can do and they need to take advantage of each one while still working on systems without that feature. As such wayland (like X before it) is unlikely to ever get enough people.

by pekk 9y ago

sametmax 9y ago

> Doubling the number of people on a project does not double the speed of its production. Resources are not just for dev. You have documentation, integration, adaptation of dependencies, packaging... But even if you just don't spend the resources on wayland nor mir, then you can use them for stuff the users want. Like fixing external monitor handling, wifi and battery life . Having basic features working on your project should be a more important priority than building an alternative compositor anyway. Even more when one is already on it's way and in good shape. > They aren't your resources to spend. Canonical doesn't tell Red Hat what it can do, so why the other way around? Just because they aren't my resource doesn't mean I can't express my view on it. I'm not actively preventing canonical to do anything. But as an Ubuntu user with priorities, as an active member of the community doing bug reports and trying beta software, as an Ubuntu evangelist spending personal time to sell Ubuntu/install it/maintain it on my relative laptops and as somebody who gives financial support to the project, it's fair that I express my thoughts on the matter. I don't even know why I have to tell that to you. It should be obvious. It's a community. Communities communicate. Also since, me and the others like me, where right about it (that mir would fail and waste resources), I'd say I wished we would have been listened to. I'm not playing the blame game. I'm certainly not questioning Canonical competence and I'm not angry at them. I love the company and the product. I just happen to disagree with their politic on this particular decision. I'm now very glad they choose to invest in wayland. I will miss unity, which was a project I liked. So it's a not just about "reinventing the wheel" and "competition". I like gnome shell less than unity, but I think it's a good decision to work on it instead for the community.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bluGill 9y ago

Your point 1 is wrong. The original quote is "adding people to a late project makes it latter". This quote is true, but it only applies to late projects. A project that is not late is in a more complex situation, and can often benefit from adding more people. Once you pay the price to get everyone up to speed they can all contribute which in many cases can double the long term speed. There is of course a limit, eventually you get too many people, but Wayland is not in danger of that. I believe Wayland would be better off with triple the team size long term. It would let them fix numerous bus problems, allow more code review, and speed them up. I would gladly take slower progress short term to get faster progress long term. Unfortunately code like wayland demands the best programmers. A .01% speed increase in many parts is noticeable to the end users. There are tons of bugs in graphics drivers (and hardware) that have to be worked around at the wayland level. There are many variations of what the hardware can do and they need to take advantage of each one while still working on systems without that feature. As such wayland (like X before it) is unlikely to ever get enough people.