On Di, 2013-06-18 at 12:11 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2013/6/18 Oliver Grawert <email@example.com>:
> > hi,
> > On Di, 2013-06-18 at 11:16 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> 2013/6/18 Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> >> > 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)...