×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel, Red Hat Working On Enabling Wayland Support In GNOME

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the i-wonder-which-one-is-the-sidekick dept.

GNOME 168

sfcrazy writes "After shooting down Canonical's Mir, Intel and Red Hat teams have increased collaboration on the development of Wayland. Developers at Intel and Red Hat are working together to 'merge and stabilize the patches to enable Wayland support in GNOME,' as Christian Schaller writes on his blog. The teams are also looking into improving the stack further. Weston won't be used anymore, so GNOME Shell will become the Wayland compositor. It must be noted that Canonical earlier committed to supporting and embracing Wayland. Despite that promise, the company silently stopped contribution, and it was later learned that they were secretly working on their own display server, Mir. Intel's management recently rejected patches for Mir, leaving its maintainance to Canonical. Before Intel's rejection, GNOME and KDE also refused to adopt Mir. Intel's message is clear to Canonical: if you promise to contribute, then do so."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

More petty bickering (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 7 months ago | (#44811465)

It's exactly what the Linux desktop needed! Thanks, everyone!

Re:More petty bickering (3, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#44811613)

Petty bickering is more of Ubuntu going, "Wayland isn't coming fast enough... let's create our own instead of helping!" Waste of resources, Ubuntu.

Re:More petty bickering (5, Informative)

spitzak (4019) | about 7 months ago | (#44811801)

To be fair, Wayland really was not coming fast enough. I follow the Wayland developer mailing list, and it is apparent Mir seems to have kicked the Wayland developers in the butt and gotten them back to work. And they did fix some mistakes, in particular they realized that the server has to do event handling so that input methods work, rather than the previous idea that clients would have to interpret raw device events. I think they also fixed the other complaint Mir had which was the method to allocate window image buffers could not work with Android drivers, though this area is very confusing and it is not clear if it was a problem and/or whether it is fixed now.

Re:More petty bickering (5, Interesting)

div_2n (525075) | about 7 months ago | (#44811847)

It's more like Canonical looking at the progress and direction of Wayland and saying, "we don't feel this product is going to be sufficient for our near term mobile goals and would rather roll our own to ensure product delivery"

Whether or not they were correct in this thinking is possibly open for debate. There's certainly been some things they've said publicly that were debunked, but that doesn't mean the core of their premise is wrong. They are moving to a mobile strategy that AFAIK just isn't a prime directive of Wayland, but I'm not well versed in all that is Wayland so maybe someone that is can clear that up.

The petty bickering is Wayland devs and fans getting butt hurt about some things Canonical has said publicly some of which has been proven wrong as I said above. Since then, it's been a cacophony of rants from the Wayland devs/fans with general Canonical/Ubuntu haters thrown in bashing on Canonical/Ubuntu/Mir/Unity at every opportunity.

I've just started tuning it out waiting to see how it all turns out. If there's room for more than one IDE, I don't see why there can't be room for more than one compositor. May the best product win where "win" is defined as the most market share.

Re:More petty bickering (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44811993)

They are moving to a mobile strategy that AFAIK just isn't a prime directive of Wayland

There is nothing that qualifies Mir and disqualifies Wayland for mobile. Hell you can use Xorg in mobile and achieve good results, albeit with unnecessary X11-imposed overhead.

If there's room for more than one IDE, I don't see why there can't be room for more than one compositor.

Compositors are mutually exclusive. You can run any number of IDEs at the same time, compositors are one-at-a-time things.

May the best product win where "win" is defined as the most market share.

The last thing I want to see is someone (who is notorious for being insular) leveraging marketshare to push their internally controlled solution on everyone else.

Re:More petty bickering (2)

div_2n (525075) | about 7 months ago | (#44812185)

There is nothing that qualifies Mir and disqualifies Wayland for mobile. Hell you can use Xorg in mobile and achieve good results, albeit with unnecessary X11-imposed overhead.

"Not being a prime directive" and "not being able to do it" aren't the same things. If you're trying to squeeze every ounce of performance out of a mobile device, which Canonical does want to do in order to support convergence, then you WANT your compositor to be designed from the ground up with mobile in mind. It may well be that even given this Wayland is the better choice due to better design. Time will tell.

Compositors are mutually exclusive. You can run any number of IDEs at the same time, compositors are one-at-a-time things.

BFD

The last thing I want to see is someone (who is notorious for being insular) leveraging market share to push their internally controlled solution on everyone else.

If other distros offer a better product with the help of Wayland, then they'll have no problem stealing market share. Linux users tend to be savvy such that they can switch distros if compelled to do so.

Re:More petty bickering (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#44813681)

unnecessary X11-imposed overhead.

What overhead? The overhead that made people complain that it made a 20MHz Sun 3/60 run slow? My phone could probably emulate that machine 20x faster than real time if anyone gave a fuck about such a machine anymore.

Seriously, X11 might have been bloated in 1987, but it sure as hell isn't bloated any more as evidenced by the leading benchmark scores, for example.

Re:More petty bickering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814241)

Seriously, X11 might have been bloated in 1987, but it sure as hell isn't bloated any more as evidenced by the leading benchmark scores, for example.

What example? You've been crying about benchmarks but haven't provided links to any such benchmarks. Here's one [openbenchmarking.org] I found. X11 loses. Are you actually going to post a link to back up your claim or just keep trolling as usual?

Re:More petty bickering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813915)

> Hell you can use Xorg in mobile and achieve good results

Is there any way to sandbox X11 apps? Something would have to be done to the security model which allows any app to send events to any other.

Re:More petty bickering (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 7 months ago | (#44814091)

What I'm interested to know is why are they making such a big song and dance about intel not carrying their patches? They can carry their own out of tree patches (just like anybody who wants their own modifications to the driver) and the fact that intel has released their driver as open source is what allows them to do this at all. So the question is how are they adding this support for nVidia or the closed-source AMD drivers?

Re:More petty bickering (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 7 months ago | (#44813815)

Petty bickering is more of Ubuntu going, "Wayland isn't coming fast enough... let's create our own instead of helping!" Waste of resources, Ubuntu.

How is this any different from the rest of Linux? Oh, KDE is blah, let's create GNOME! or "I hate distribution YYY, lets make ZZZ!"

How is Wayland vs. Mir any different? "Oh Wayland isn't coming along, let's create Mir!". I thought variety within Linux was a good thing which is why we have a million Linux distributions and forks and other stuff.

Whether or not they were correct in this thinking is possibly open for debate. There's certainly been some things they've said publicly that were debunked, but that doesn't mean the core of their premise is wrong. They are moving to a mobile strategy that AFAIK just isn't a prime directive of Wayland, but I'm not well versed in all that is Wayland so maybe someone that is can clear that up.

The petty bickering is Wayland devs and fans getting butt hurt about some things Canonical has said publicly some of which has been proven wrong as I said above. Since then, it's been a cacophony of rants from the Wayland devs/fans with general Canonical/Ubuntu haters thrown in bashing on Canonical/Ubuntu/Mir/Unity at every opportunity.

How is this any different from the other flamewars that happen? KDE vs. GNOME, vi vs. Emacs, Linux distro vs. Linux distro.

Re:More petty bickering (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811755)

Yes, exactly what Linux needs. And may the best solution win out.

Re:More petty bickering (1)

chuckinator (2409512) | about 7 months ago | (#44812739)

Yes, by all means, let's dictate what people should be doing instead of letting them decide for themselves what the best solution should be through trial and error!

Re:More petty bickering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814929)

Yes, by all means, let's dictate what people should be doing instead of letting them decide for themselves

Right, let Intel decide for themselves what they want to include in their open source driver and if Canonical want to fork it or carry out-of-tree patches they are more than welcome to. Just don't bitch and moan because Intel don't want to do what you want them to do.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811469)

I've read the article on Wayland at Wikipedia, but I still don't know why they want to replace X.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 7 months ago | (#44811515)

The code base is old and hard to work with from what I've heard from the X hackers. It has reached a point where it might make sense to start over.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44811649)

Additionally, X11 does a lot of things that have been taken over by toolkits. GTK and Qt don't even use X11's drawing and font facilities anymore, they handle it themselves and then dump a buffer for Xorg to display.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811933)

So. Code that works but has some bits that aren't used anymore should be thrown out?
okay.jpg

Re:Why? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44812041)

Why not? If no one uses it anymore, it's dead code that simply increases complexity. And once you start removing those dead bits, you can't call it X11 anymore. So you fix it to better fit the most common use cases and the easiest way to do that now is by rewriting it. Particularly when that code was written against a 30 year old standard that has been receiving workarounds to account for new hardware for years.

Re:Why? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 7 months ago | (#44812167)

If the reason is that parts have been implemented in GTK+ and Qt then that sounds like a negative abstraction. There's lots of other toolkits which I'm sure users still would like to run. If all toolkits have to implement something then X is the proper place to put it.

Re: Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44812641)

If it's not GTK, and it's not Qt, then I write it off because I'm positive it will look and function like ass. It's not Native to My Platform.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about 7 months ago | (#44813065)

There's the thing. X was written when there were no other toolkits, at least not of note (Motif?) so X does everything. As newer toolkits were added (GTK, etc) it made sense for them to do certain things, and many of those have become redundant in X. X is many layers of old code, a refresh is in order. Sometimes you have to stop saying "why fix it if it ain't broken" and just fix it. You don't really want to drive a model A while everyone else is driving a Tesla, do you? Besides, rather than create a successor to Ruby on Rails, which is a solution in search of a problem, IMO, why not create a successor to X, which is actually useful?

Re:Why? (2)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 7 months ago | (#44813167)

If all toolkits have to implement something then X is the proper place to put it.

No, if all toolkits have to implement something then a shared library is the proper place to put it. For the most part, that's what's been happening. For example, both Qt and GTK+ need to render fonts, so they rely on FreeType.

The problem with putting drawing primitives and font rendering in the X server is that applications generally want to compose these operations together in ways the standard APIs don't support, which would imply either lots of round-trips and wasted effort or moving the application's drawing code into the X server (like DPS). When both the X server and the application are local, it's obviously both easier and more efficient to hand all of the rendering over to the application. The interesting part is that even if the application is remote, it can be more efficient to communicate a compressed form of the result over the network rather than all the drawing commands and raw data required to assemble the same image locally.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813209)

Yeah, it is certainly worth breaking backwards compatibility to save 250 KB.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811735)

There are certain things you cannot do with a pure X solution, much related to seamless transitions at login.

They argue that the seemed advantages of X, don't get used in the real world. In practice, rather then truly using network transparency, most of the time they just send bitmaps across the wire to update the screen. Because of this, by starting from scratch without this unused functionality they can make a faster, less resource-intensive, and prettier UI. For over-the-network usage they can just use a protocol to sent the updates, after they are rendered on the side with the application (clients and servers with X always feel backwards to me), which is what gets done in practice with X anyway.

Basically, if you aren't a developer, you wont care. It just gets more pretty. If you are, it gets easier to make things look better.

Re:Why? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 7 months ago | (#44811945)

Basically, if you aren't a developer, you wont care.

I think you mean: if you don't use the features of X that many of us use X for (like being able to efficiently remote display over a LAN), you won't care.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44812007)

no, no I dont.

Read what I said again.

In the real world, the network transparency support features are not used, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE USING A REMOTE DISPLAY because it's easier and more effective to actually render on the remote machine and bang the interface, so that's exactly what every widget toolkit does.

Re:Why? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#44812269)

Easier programming wise, maybe, but not easier on the network, or on admins'/users' sanity when using a remote connection. Transferring bitmaps around is bandwidth intensive and annoyingly slow, even on high speed connections.

Maybe they're not used, but they should be.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813941)

Easier programming wise, maybe, but not easier on the network, or on admins'/users' sanity when using a remote connection. Transferring bitmaps around is bandwidth intensive and annoyingly slow, even on high speed connections.

Maybe they're not used, but they should be.

If you want your programs' icons to be rendered with new-in-1988 stippled lines rather than Cairo and your text rendered with blew-my-mind-in-1992 bitmapped fonts rather than OpenType, then yes toolkits could use the original X11 drawing conventions. However not many people actually want that.In any case, if you are happy with every toolkit implementing everything twice, why not be happy with one of those implementations being Wayland and the other being traditional-style X11?

There's also the problem that X11 is far too 'chatty' a protocol. While network bandwidth available to a typical user has increased exponentially in the last twenty years, the latency has not reduced by nearly as much. This leaves a serious problem with all the excess round-trips that can't be fixed without making completely incompatible changes to the protocol.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

markjhood2003 (779923) | about 7 months ago | (#44814447)

In the real world, the network transparency support features are not used, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE USING A REMOTE DISPLAY because it's easier and more effective to actually render on the remote machine and bang the interface, so that's exactly what every widget toolkit does.

I have three headless Linux machines and the only display I have is on my laptop. My remote X11 clients run on these machines and present their UIs on my local X11 display server running on my laptop. While it is probably true that these clients are not transmitting XDrawLine and XFillArc protocol elements to render their UIs, they are still mostly assembling pre-rendered bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets to send down the wire for rendering on the local server. How is this going to work on Wayland?

I keep reading that this will be supported through some backward-compatible protocol, but has anybody actually worked out the details of how existing X11 clients will migrate to this new protocol? My fear is that these clients will stop working with future versions of Linux and their replacements will not support network transparency.

Wayland has a real use case for mobile devices, but why make the same mistake as Microsoft by gratuitously trying to unify mobile with desktop? On a desktop, the only advantage to Wayland is that it facilitates implementing a pretty compositing desktop. This is a fad that is already starting to fade from fashion.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 7 months ago | (#44814739)

My remote X11 clients run on these machines and present their UIs on my local X11 display server running on my laptop. While it is probably true that these clients are not transmitting XDrawLine and XFillArc protocol elements to render their UIs, they are still mostly assembling pre-rendered bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets to send down the wire for rendering on the local server. How is this going to work on Wayland?

Actually, what the clients are doing right now is assembling bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets into a pixmap on the client side, most likely without the benefits of GPU acceleration, and sending the result as an uncompressed pixmap over the wire to the X server, which hands it off to a compositor, which combines the pixmap with images from other applications and hands the result back to the X server. If they're luck enough not to need any special transformations or compositing effects, the clients may be able to leave the rendering of the individual font glyphs to the server, but that's about it.

With Wayland the clients are doing the same work to assemble the surfaces for their windows, but they get to use the local GPU to do it, and the result is compressed by a local off-screen Wayland proxy server using modern video codecs before being transmitted over the network for compositing.

On a desktop, the only advantage to Wayland is that it facilitates implementing a pretty compositing desktop. This is a fad that is already starting to fade from fashion.

Distracting toys like "wobbly windows" may be fading from fashion, but composited desktops are here to stay.

Re:Why? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 7 months ago | (#44814827)

So you have x11 clients running on those headless servers? Pitty as that's not how you're supposed to do it. You're supposed to run the x11 server on those servers and use a single client to access them. Better yet, toss the x11 service and simply push them out as javascript/web pages instead.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44812979)

What are "seamless transitions at login"?

Re:Why? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 7 months ago | (#44811925)

I've read the article on Wayland at Wikipedia, but I still don't know why they want to replace X.

'Cause writing new code is cool, while supporting and debugging old code is boring.

Re:Why? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44812003)

Debugging and maintaining old code that no one is using is annoying and pointless. Particularly when you know you can do better, but are hamstrung by the X11 requirements.

Re:Why? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 7 months ago | (#44813129)

...while supporting and debugging old code is boring.

So, according to that philosophy, we really should all be submitting our /. input on punched cards into batch jobs and reading your driblets of wisdom on paper tape becuase 640K should be enough for everyone, right?

Re:Why? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 7 months ago | (#44813675)

My grailslaves have been transcribing my /. posts onto stone tablets and then carrying them upRiver to the server for the last 10,000 years. Why should I abandon a system that continues to work perfectly well for me?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813881)

becuase 640K should be enough...

I actually have the audio recording of Bill Gates saying that.

Re:Why? (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#44811941)

I've read the article on Wayland at Wikipedia, but I still don't know why they want to replace X.

The X graphics stack has bad performance.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813293)

This is not true. Buffer handling can be improved, which is what Wayland is all about, but as the Wayland people point out themselves in their FAQ, this could also be accomplished within X.

Re:Why? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#44813761)

The X graphics stack has bad performance.

Compared to what. It's the fastest graphics system out there. Just look at the benchmarks. The X is slow mantra is restricted to greybeards who resent it hogging CPU cycles on their 10MHz Sun 3/60 and kiddies who believe that anything old is bad.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814189)

What benchmarks? URLs, please. Google isn't helping.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814467)

It's the fastest graphics system out there.

Fanboy alert! Fanboy alert!

Just look at the benchmarks.

What benchmarks? There's not a single god damn link in your posting.

The X is slow mantra is restricted to greybeards who resent it hogging CPU cycles on their 10MHz Sun 3/60 and kiddies who believe that anything old is bad.

Which is why Android uses X11.... oh, wait.....

Re:Why? (2)

Bill Dimm (463823) | about 7 months ago | (#44811983)

This video [linux.org.au] seems to provide a good explanation of the motivation for Wayland.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814495)

Haha when he started working on X is when it started to break. Like multixterm used to be able to run unlimited windows and now can only run about 100.

Thanks you hipster morons, keep up the good work !!

Re:Why? (1)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 7 months ago | (#44812593)

My question is, why KEEP it at all? It's old, flawed, and has been patched up a lot of times to make it keep up. It has run it's course. What's wrong with retiring old things in favour of newer ones?

Re:Why? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 months ago | (#44812971)

Because it Wayland has less context switches, especially during compositing and doesn't require marshaling data like inputs & coords into some 2D format like X which is too braindead to understand anything else. Basically it's a bottleneck. Most apps aren't even using X primitives anyway - they're throwing pixmaps or complex drawing instructions around which have been generated in an extension like Xrender.

It should make for a much more responsive desktop. It doesn't stop running X apps either since X can run over Wayland. I expect there will be a transition of at least a year or two when most dists are running both by default until they've ported all the mainstream desktop apps over. Then it's likely that X will be something people have to install rather than a core package.

Re:Why? (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about 7 months ago | (#44813025)

The API is strictly procedural and out of date, a new API can add the benefit of design pattern architecture (no, that doesn't mean it needs to be C++, this is an architectural point, not a language one). X is also full of serious security problems.

Is Canonical TRYING to piss everyone off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811471)

Is it just me or does every bit of news in the past year or two about Canonical seem designed to make people hate Canonical? I mean Shuttleworth has always been a wannabe Jobs, but lately it feels more like he's taking pages out of Gates' book ...

So sad given that, for awhile, Canonical was the source of Linux's revitalization (and now they're just "those assholes that hate the Linux community").

Re:Is Canonical TRYING to piss everyone off? (3, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#44811991)

Shuttleworth is threatening Linux users' elite club by finally showing signs of actually making Linux work on the desktop and popularizing it. That's what pisses people.

Re:Is Canonical TRYING to piss everyone off? (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#44812453)

No. He's turning what was/is a nice ecosystem of well defined tools (kernel-->userspace-->system services-->X11-->window manager/toolkit and shoving them together into one homogenous mass ala windows, complete with dumbed-down-to-the-point-of-uselessness interface. these divisions make the system manageable and desktop interfaces that actually scale with user capability are good things.

What are these newb users going to do when their 'popularized' linux starts exhibiting the negative behaviors of windows? Right, they're going to come crying to the 'elite club' you speak of for help. No thanks. It's already bad enough with ubuntu.

Re:Is Canonical TRYING to piss everyone off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814889)

I guess you are forgetting what Lennart is doing with systemd regarding making an homogenous mass.

Re:Is Canonical TRYING to piss everyone off? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#44815043)

Nope. While I like the idea of a method that uses cgroups to group processes on the fly, the rest of it's overwrought. The way he ties tons of dependencies into basic system binaries is an issue. (udev comes to mind)

Re:Is Canonical TRYING to piss everyone off? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 7 months ago | (#44812515)

He failed at that when he launched 11.04 (or was it 11.10?)
At that point Linux on the desktop lost all the hope that it had.

..and (2)

neuro88 (674248) | about 7 months ago | (#44811473)

KDE's support is also in the works but further down the line. I think later 2014 or early 2015? Can't find the schedule at the moment. Enlightenment 18 has partial wayland support with full support expected in 19.

FINALLY we're going to be free of X. Of course, I still suspect it will take some time to iron out the wrinkles to the point where the experiences on wayland for the various DE's are relatively bug free and are as smooth as butter.

What about MIR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811497)

Will Red Hat support MIR too? I don't think unity will be right for everyone.

The real agenda? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811527)

Canonical seem to be steadily trying to create a single 'us only' distro. Good that others are seeing through this.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 7 months ago | (#44811545)

Huh, what's "US only about Ubuntu?

Re:The real agenda? (4, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#44811679)

He means a total NIH mentality. Ubuntu won't use systemd because they wrote Upstart, which is functionally inferior to systemd. Ubuntu ships with Unity, which they wrote, and is functionally inferior to Gnome-Shell. Ubuntu decided Wayland is not here right now and for some reason they absolutely must move off X11 now, so rather than supplying code to Wayland they've decided to write Mir from scratch. Ubuntu uses Canonical-developed Bzr, not Git, with their own Launchpad management system developed in-house.

Re:The real agenda? (5, Informative)

dominux (731134) | about 7 months ago | (#44811853)

lets see . . .
  • Upstart was written before systemd started.
  • Unity was released before gnome-shell was released.
  • Mir is being released before Wayland.
  • Bzr was written before Git started.
  • Launchpad was written before Github (and is open source).

Canonical bashing might be all the rage at the moment, but I can see how they are feeling a bit hard done by with all these accusations that they should have used subsequent products instead of the ones they wrote first.

Re:The real agenda? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811959)

You can say that all you want, but technically they ought to have moved on. Being the first to market a product doesn't mean you can rest on your laurels and pretend it's the best. Especially in an ecosystem like Linux, and when you close your ears to the development happening around you instead of working to join in on the alternative's developments.

Re:The real agenda? (4, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44812071)

Actually it's telling, mostly about Canonical's outward attitude. They created all of these solutions, but none of them were widely adopted. Few people use Launchpad, bzr, Upstart, etc. Perhaps it's related to Canonical's seeming desire to develop internally and release when they see fit, rather than develop in the open and take community input?

And Wayland is out there. It was already being tested on devices when Mir was announced. Of course, no one knew Mir was coming because Canonical likes to work behind closed doors, the larger Linux world be damned.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 months ago | (#44812853)

Actually it's telling, mostly about Canonical's outward attitude. They created all of these solutions, but none of them were widely adopted. Few people use Launchpad, bzr, Upstart, etc. Perhaps it's related to Canonical's seeming desire to develop internally and release when they see fit, rather than develop in the open and take community input?

So does a mildly successful OSS project called Android, I don't know maybe Canonical is tired of trying to get everyone on board and just decided "We'll go our own way and when you finally figure out it was the right one feel free to catch up". Android did the first true fork of the Linux kernel that I've heard of and probably ruffled some feathers there but they got it out the door, shipping and working. At the current rate I'd wager a desktopified Android will take over before Gnome/KDE/Unity.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44813237)

So does a mildly successful OSS project called Android

That Android is OSS is almost completely immaterial because even if it wasn't, the handset vendors would get the sources regardless.

maybe Canonical is tired of trying to get everyone on board and just decided "We'll go our own way and when you finally figure out it was the right one feel free to catch up".

And maybe they just think they know better than everyone else. But I suspect that Mir would not have happened if not for Wayland.

Android did the first true fork of the Linux kernel that I've heard of and probably ruffled some feathers there but they got it out the door, shipping and working

And the net result is that the kernel is a constantly moving target that causes a large part of the delay in getting new versions of Android on older handsets. I'd hardly argue that Android of all things is an example of why doing things in an open way is bad, given how rapidly most Android devices are left to wither on the vine. I'd hate for desktops and laptops to be left to wither in a similar fashion.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 7 months ago | (#44812161)

Is that like the equivalent of yelling "first post"? Just because it happened before something else doesn't mean continuing to be the only one using it is the right thing. If they had issues with the programs that followed why didn't they devote time to fixing them and helping make them better and standardized across Linux?

The entire community benefits from working on the same base. Every time Ubuntu does their NIH game and develops yet another thing that is almost identical to the community standard they are dividing work that could be used to improve Linux in general. But I guess that's the point, Canonical has never been a team player, and it should never be more apparent than Shuttleworth's version of Balmers "burning platform" memo where he asserts PC's are dead and that Ubuntu will now focus exclusively on tablets and phones.

Re:The real agenda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813349)

Shared(Collection) misery of software development process does not work!

Re:The real agenda? (4, Informative)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#44812245)

Upstart was written before systemd started; Fedora and RHEL used Upstart for a while. Newer, better has come along.

Unity was a quick response to Gnome Shell, which was available as a functional pre-release in 2009 3 months before Unity. Gnome Shell was up-and-coming and Canonical headed it off. The big move to Unity was highly politicized as "Oh no! Gnome is changing! People hate that! They will be angry at the new Gnome interface! ... Unity!!!!" It was integrated into the distribution as the primary desktop environment one release prior to integration of Gnome Shell, when Gnome Shell was already released and stable.

Mir came about well into the Wayland development cycle, citing "Wayland is coming too slowly. And we don't like it."

Bzr is the third generation of a number of unrelated pieces of software. The original Bzr, now renamed Bazaar, was a slow bloated piece of shit that didn't work right at all. The current Bzr started pretty bad, and has been improved; it was easily surpassed by Git at one point, but had caught up. There was also Mercurial and darcs, but that's not really of much import. The reason Bzr isn't more popular isn't that it's not great; it's that Git was better way before Bzr was usable.

Launchpad took forever to become open source, but that's not really a huge issue. It's sensible, but it is on their laundry list of stuff they've written that's not the same as everything that was already out there. To be fair, all other stuff out there sucks; I'd like to have Launchpad with Git integration (it'll import a Git repo by converting it to Bzr, rather than actually integrating with Git), or something like Gitlab but in Python instead of Ruby (running Ruby apps is really fucking hard; it's like the old days of wild wild Java west when nothing worked unless you were a Dark Invoker, and even then only one app per server... look up RVM and such to get an idea).

Re:The real agenda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44815347)

"The big move to Unity was highly politicized as "Oh no! Gnome is changing! People hate that! They will be angry at the new Gnome interface! ... Unity!!!!""

Well, you got one thing right. People DID hate the change to Gnome, and most I know STILL do. I've given both Unity and Gnome shell a good long chance on my machines (along with just about every other DE and major WM), and I'm glad Ubuntu went the way they did. I can still run Gnome shell if I want, I just don't want.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

luther349 (645380) | about 7 months ago | (#44812263)

i would agree but first isn't best or right look how slow and buggy unit was and well to be honest in some places still is and its total lack of features that did not come until later. and this whole we need a mobile os is a huge wast of time a resources these should be sepret projects not shoved down the desktop users throats.

Re:The real agenda? (3, Interesting)

chuckinator (2409512) | about 7 months ago | (#44812485)

I have a vastly different criticism from what I typically hear about Canonical and Ubuntu. Circa Ubuntu 12.04, I started noticing severely degrading quality in the underlying platform scripts, default configurations, and over platform management in Ubuntu. Command line sysadmin conventions typically left alone by the sprawling masses of "gotta change for change's sake" developers suddenly came under fire. What was once a very stable system under the hood was suddenly forgotten and uncared for, so I left. I didn't care about Unity because I've been using Fluxbox for nearly 8-9 years prior, but I did care that it was suddenly ridiculously difficult to bring up a stable NFSv4 w/ krb5 auth, that they were by default using linux software raid partition versions that weren't compatible with CentOS, and that iptables wasn't integrated into the baseline OS in a very sane way. I found out that the default build configuration of ntp didn't support autokey. I found out that the default build configuration for OpenSSL and other crypto related packages had no support for FIPS 140-2.

In other words, with the release of 12.04, ubuntu told me that they suddenly didn't care about enterprise users any more, so I moved on to what I have found to be a superior option for my needs. I understand that I could have rolled my own packages from scratch, but I didn't feel that was an efficient use of my time since switching to Fedora or RHEL/CentOS/SL gave me what I needed by default. I had already cast away the bottomless time sink that was managing gentoo machines, and I wasn't interested in dealing with another only a year later with Ubuntu.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

washort (6555) | about 7 months ago | (#44812649)

Yes. This is the inverse of NIH -- the "Invented Here" syndrome. I'm particularly frustrated by this because I very much prefer bzr to git, but the hype and community coalesced around git instead.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44812675)

systemd is better than upstart.
git is much better than bzr.
gnome-shell is more usable and developing faster than unity.
wayland was written before mir.

Adapt or die.

Re:The real agenda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44814811)

sistemd is advertised better than upstart, it shares lots of its shortcomings.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

neuro88 (674248) | about 7 months ago | (#44812737)

Mir isn't being released until ubuntu 13.10, and then it will only use xmir. That is, the mir layer isn't doing anything other than introducing another potential layer of bugs, and flipping pages. Seeing as how xmir is 99% xwayland, and mir itself is doing almost nothing at all, I'm not sure I'd call it a "release".

Gnome 3.10 is due to be released on Sept. 25th and is well on its way to having actual wayland support which will beat Ubuntu 13.10's October release date (same with Enlightenment 18 which has partial wayland support). Ubuntu 14.04 is when they expect to start having native (actual) mir support in Unity/ubuntu.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 7 months ago | (#44813277)

Upstart was written before systemd started.

So? Does that make it functionally superior? systemd uses dbus, that gives is a good start on being moved from "toy" status to "let's look at this" status.

Re:The real agenda? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 7 months ago | (#44815003)

and as a Gentoo use, I don't use SystemD at all as it just adds complexity that's not needed. Hell the entire purpose of SystemD appears to be destruction of the LFsHS (Linux File System Hierarchy Standard) by requiring /usr to be on the same partition as /bin /sbin and /root. Since I don't use it, my /usr is actually on a seperate partition and drive for security reasons. Simply put, my /usr partition is mounted read-only so any attack that tries to modify user apps (Libre-Office, VLC) simply fails. Same for the /usr/portage directory. It's a seperate partition/drive and once I've finished the system build and stability testing, it's not even mounted. I have a cron job/script that mounts it on a quarterly basis to run emerge --sync then dismount it because I simply have little reason to update my software each and every month even if there is a severe vulnerability.

Why this is the case is that most of the vulerabilities I've seen tend to be in an optional component that I don't have installed like the Dbase need for Java. Well I don't do any Database work so Java isn't installed nor will it be as I have no need for it. The same for many of the other vulnerabilities that have occurred over the years. I simply don't have the god damn kitchen sink installed as Debian, RH/CentOS/Fedora tend to do.

Re:The real agenda? (2)

Tailhook (98486) | about 7 months ago | (#44814287)

but I can see how they are feeling a bit hard done by with all these accusations that they should have used subsequent products instead of the ones they wrote first.

The question one must ask at this point is why has Canonical's work on all these products not been widely accepted? They do all this work, create lots of stuff, and the rest of the world routes around it.

Are we all participants in some global anti-Canonical conspiracy? Are Linus and Kristian Høgsberg and Redhat and Gnome and github.com and the Mint guys and everyone else meeting every second Tuesday to plot the demise of Canonical?

Obviously not. What I believe we have here is an insular and unapproachable organization that independent contributors and peer organizations simply will not tolerate. Until that changes we're going to continue to see more Canonical work rejected.

By failing to engage its peers, Canonical is squandering its early success at nailing together a tolerable desktop rendition of Linux. I for one hope that changes, but Canonical has demonstrated a truly amazing level of stubbornness and indifference.

Re:The real agenda? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44812091)

Upstart, with shortcomings at all, is tested, systemd is a fun toy that went out of hand with a guy using is loud mouth to cover in mud whoever is against his debatable ideas or spots some design mistake in his creation.

Plus the whole embrace and extend to other key components of linux boot such as udev.

Re:The real agenda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44813251)

You made a typo! You ment UK!

Just NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811687)

so that we can reach our goal of having a full featured and stable GNOME

So...a single non configurable button with the word "NO" written on it? Heck, we can do that already with what we currently have.

Vertical integration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811753)

"They" are all integrating platforms vertically, either by in-house efforts or by partnerships/alliances. It will be interesting to see who the survivors will be, as there will be no prisoner taking.

Redhat? (0, Offtopic)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 7 months ago | (#44811771)

Redhat?

For those that are not aware of his past, Jim Whitehurst--CEO of Redhat--was once Vice President of Boston Consulting Group...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group [wikipedia.org]
(see following list of other employees of BCG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_employees_of_Boston_Consulting_Group [wikipedia.org]

As I pointed out is another post ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4183357&cid=44792345 [slashdot.org] ), Boston Consulting Group is a central component of the "1%" and their influence around the world.

Redhat is fully involved with the NSA, as is Intel (look at the links I provided in my other post). Neither company can be trusted for anything anymore. All of their products are now questionable in terms of NSA backdoors as a result of their previous (and in my opinion, ongoing) relationship with the "Big 3" consulting firms as well as the NSA.

Blacklist those involved, and start looking for alternatives. Permanently. And, please, do not take my word for it--research these people yourselves, make the connections yourselves...come to your own conclusions. Start trusting your own instincts, rather then swallowing everything in the media (including Slashdot...there be spies here, too).

Re:Redhat? (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 months ago | (#44811879)

Care to supply actual evidence of these claims? Because anyone can make wild claims, what gets attention is evidence, which your post is lacking.

Re:Redhat? (-1, Flamebait)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 7 months ago | (#44812771)

"Care to supply actual evidence of these claims?..."

Oh, please. If I had actual physical evidence, I'd be in some NSA sub-basement right now.

What I am doing is exactly what the NSA does with the Prism program--looking at metadata--and by doing so illustrating networks of influence, cronyism and funding. Seriously, look at the following list of current and past employees of Boston Consulting Group and tell me if you really trust a single name on that list, by default. Everyone on that list was trained, educated and placed by BCG. Now look at where those people are today--they are among the most powerful people on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_employees_of_Boston_Consulting_Group [wikipedia.org]

The networks of power and control they create are subject to the same security faults as the networks they spy upon--associations are as often as telling as the actual works they perpetrate. The moment you start working as a group is the moment your associations can be used to identify your group.

And to directly address your post--Do you have any evidence to support any claim that I am wrong? See what I did there? Pretty clever, huh?

Re:Redhat? (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 7 months ago | (#44813459)

"Care to supply actual evidence of these claims?..."

Oh, please. If I had actual physical evidence, I'd be in some NSA sub-basement right now.

you seem to be supplying plenty of evidence to suggest you are a paranoid schizophrenic. no, seriously, i think you need professional help.

Re:Redhat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44811975)

Red Hat is open source. You can see for yourself if there are any backdoors. I don't think that you'll find any, though.

Re:Redhat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44812193)

How many RH users compile a custom kernel?

ARMsrace? (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 7 months ago | (#44812171)

I can't help but see this as an ARMsrace, and I think it's a mistake for Intel.

Like or hate Ubuntu they recognize the consumer trend moving to low power SBCs. ARM is already dominating in this market and, according to wiki [wikipedia.org]:

these parts [of mir] include Android’s input stack and Google’s Protocol Buffers. An implementation detail in memory management shared with Android is the use of server-allocated buffers which Canonical employee Christopher Halse Rogers claims to be a requirement for “the ARM world and Android graphics stack”.

So to me, it seems like the push towards Mir for Ubuntu is compatible with their vision of handheld, low power, devices completely replacing the desktop [ubuntu.com]. This may well be the future of personal computing, and if I was Intel I'd want a seat at that table.

Sounds like 13.10 is to be avoided (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 7 months ago | (#44813107)

I use KDE. Period.

If KDE doesn't work with Mir, and Ubuntu forces Mir with the 13.10 update, then I won't be updating to 13.10 from 13.04.

I may well have to do a reinstall with LTS, from what I'm reading. And that would piss me off to no end.

Re:Sounds like 13.10 is to be avoided (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 7 months ago | (#44813125)

Actually, if I have to reinstall, I think I'll go with a base install of Debian and say "Screw you, Ubuntu!"

Check out MicroXwin (1, Interesting)

microxwin (2961681) | about 7 months ago | (#44813921)

MicroXwin (http://www.microxwin.com) is a completely new X windows implementation which is small, fast and compatible withe standard X. Here is a video of MicroXwin performance on Raspberry Pi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zttcdPtJN8A [youtube.com] Raspberry Pi is some what dated. Here is a video of MicroXwin on more recent SOC such as Allwinner A20: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T18FhSTQ08k [youtube.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...