5 ms·

I would agree with your position only if we could assert that Wayland is the best protocol we can ever have. But can we affirm that? Can we suppose that there

by yulaow 13y ago

I would agree with your position only if we could assert that Wayland is the best protocol we can ever have. But can we affirm that? Can we suppose that there is no way to make a better protocol? What if Mir in the end will become better or will work better or will be more adopted? What if the guys of wayland will fail in making something really good? What if they take some wrong decisions and we will have no alternative in which rely? We need everywhere competition.

zanny 13y ago
Wayland exists because it was proposed with concrete reasons why X was rubbish and needed replaced. So everyone said "yes, true, valid, you speak honestly here" and they proceeded to develop Wayland and everyone was on board with transitioning to it when it was ready. Mir has never produced any arguments for its adoption and has only spread false information claiming why it has merits over Wayland. Free software will usually jump on any software that can clearly state "this replaces X, for reasons Y, because X is insufficient for purpose in these domains Z and can't be fixed". You get situations where projects like pulse and systemd come under fire over disagreements over what Z domains X is appropriate for, not because there are arguments against Y being lacking functionality.
kryptiskt 13y ago
Wayland at least has (and strictly speaking is) a protocol, you can make a Wayland competitor speaking its protocol. In Mir the protocol is an implementation detail bound to break between versions.
snarfy 13y ago
Competition isn't the solution to every problem. Sometimes cooperation is the correct choice. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
webreac 13y ago
wayland is less negative about network transparency than mir. I am ALWAYS using network transparency (none of my X clients are running localy). When I am over "slow" network (for example to provide support to Portugal from France), I use vncviewer, but I do not even bother to run the x11vnc command on the same host than the display.

by yulaow 13y ago

zanny 13y ago

Wayland exists because it was proposed with concrete reasons why X was rubbish and needed replaced. So everyone said "yes, true, valid, you speak honestly here" and they proceeded to develop Wayland and everyone was on board with transitioning to it when it was ready. Mir has never produced any arguments for its adoption and has only spread false information claiming why it has merits over Wayland. Free software will usually jump on any software that can clearly state "this replaces X, for reasons Y, because X is insufficient for purpose in these domains Z and can't be fixed". You get situations where projects like pulse and systemd come under fire over disagreements over what Z domains X is appropriate for, not because there are arguments against Y being lacking functionality.

kryptiskt 13y ago

Wayland at least has (and strictly speaking is) a protocol, you can make a Wayland competitor speaking its protocol. In Mir the protocol is an implementation detail bound to break between versions.

snarfy 13y ago

Competition isn't the solution to every problem. Sometimes cooperation is the correct choice. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

webreac 13y ago

wayland is less negative about network transparency than mir. I am ALWAYS using network transparency (none of my X clients are running localy). When I am over "slow" network (for example to provide support to Portugal from France), I use vncviewer, but I do not even bother to run the x11vnc command on the same host than the display.