I just want to chime in with my impressions from various discussions
and talks to clarify the emotional situation. FWIW, I do not have any
opinion about which technology is better -- I know nothing about this
stuff, just summarizing what I hear/read.
Jono Bacon [2013-06-17 16:47 -0700]:
> My primary point was in response to "Canonical declines to work with the
> rest of the free software community"; I think this is an example of us
> being very eager and open to engage with upstream. I think we are doing the
> best we can, but entirely understand if upstream are uninterested in
> investing their time in Mir.
It seems the main gripe of GNOME, KDE, and Wayland itself are that
there was no such sign of that before the Mir decision -- there have
been no discussions at all with the Wayland developers about what we
would need from it and how to adapt the Wayland protocol to Unity's
needs. 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, and (2) it would have been more effective/polite to
discuss the technical difficulties as a first step; people like Daniel
Stone have a vast technical experience and are not hard to reach (he
had even worked for Canonical for several years).
So I guess we need to accept that they are not entirely happy about
this result and thus won't be eager to drop all their plans and work
to jump on Mir.
I think the best way for us to contiue to engage with upstreams at
this point is to make sure that the Wayland protocol can work on
Ubuntu. I don't see support for multiple protocols happening in
GNOME/KDE/others, as that's quite contrary to every project's goal
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel