On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:45:18 PM Oliver Grawert wrote: > hi, > > On Di, 2013-06-18 at 12:11 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > 2013/6/18 Oliver Grawert <[email protected]>: > > > hi, > > > > > > On Di, 2013-06-18 at 11:16 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >> 2013/6/18 Steve Langasek <[email protected]>: > > >> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:13:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >> >> I think Jonathon's post earlier today captures the core issue: > > >> >> > > >> >> On Monday, June 17, 2013 09:05:08 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> > > >> >> As long as Canonical declines to work with the rest of the free > > >> >> software > > >> >> community, > > >> > > > >> > Well, I think that's an altogether inaccurate and unfair > > >> > characterization. > > >> > Canonical has always been open to working with "the rest of the free > > >> > software community"; what Canonical has not been willing to do is > > >> > blindly > > >> > follow where certain self-appointed "upstreams" would lead, when that > > >> > conflicts with the business's goals. > > >> > > >> Well, working with the upstreams (who usually know their code best), > > >> making compromises, trying to convince upstreams that the way you > > >> think something should be designed is best and finally, if there is a > > >> consensus, implement that code and make it available to everyone is > > >> basically the essence of "working with "the rest of the free software > > >> community"". It has never been easy, and if upstreams reject certain > > >> features, people are free to fork. But the dicussion needs to happen > > >> first and stuff needs to be implemented closely to upstream, so > > >> everyone knows about it and it can be accepted easily. > > >> Especially the communication step was missing in the Wayland story. > > > > > > so the right reaction is to now reject the communication from the > > > upstream/flavour side as a punishment for this ?!? > > > > There is no communication at the moment - mentioning stuff on a > > Mailinglist, which upstream developers most likely won't read (you > > cannot be subscribed to every distribution's ML) does not help. > > Contacting the upstreams directly on their mailinglists (the KWin ML > > or the GNOME Mutter ML) is the step to do. > > well, this thread is called "non-Unity *flavours* and Mir" involving > upstreams would be a secondary step ... > > > My comment was about the communication with Wayland > > . Speaking to > > Wayland developers doesn't make sense anymore, since Ubuntu is doing > > Mir now. > > i personally don't care at all about Wayland or Mir and trust the > specialists in their area to make the right decisions (as i know they > will trust me for my areas) ... > what bothers me in this thread is the attitude more than the topic, > there is an offer for communication and it is declined with a foot > stomping "i don't talk to you because you didn't talk to me first" > attitude of ten year olds ... > > ,, form people i consider friends that i learned to know as pretty > rational people and that i thought i would know better ... > > > Although emotion is involved, there are technical reasons for not > > considering Mir, which Martin has summarized in a Blogpost. > > to quote one of his reasons: > "Ubuntu has always had one of the worst graphics stack in the free > software world. I can see this in the bug tracker. The quality of the > Mesa stack in Ubuntu is really bad." > > right, thats a truely founded and technically proper researched > statement ... sadly his blogpost is full of this ... > > as a spectator who doesn't really know much or care about display > servers (but who cares very much about the online community he lives in) > and who tries to get all arguments from both sides to get an objective > opinion about the topic i must say that Chris Halse Rogers' "Why Mir" > series of blog posts appears a lot more rational with a lot less FUD > spread across it (and surprisingly no foot stomping at all)...
The same blog post you're quoting selectively from goes into rather more detail about concerns: http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/05/mir-in-kubuntu/ Keep in mind that this is not from someone who isn't fundamentally anti-Ubuntu and or anti- Canonical. He's taken a week of his time to come to UDS (first IDS in Orlando) and try to figure out how to collaborate better. While I appreciate Chris Halse Rogers posts on "Why Mir", those are precisely the ones Martin Pitt was referring to when he said: > ... Now, I do understand that the Wayland protocol has certainly > been looked at, but (1) what has been published from that decision > making process has not been technically very convincing to these > communities, ... Many people don't think the primary motivation was technical and calling them names for thinking that isn't going to get anyone anywhere. So far, there hasn't been a technical argument that people who understand this way better than I do find compelling. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
