And here we have an *actual* case of *Linux fragmentation*
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| BernardSwiss Jan 09, 2013 4:16 AM EDT |
It's too bad. I like Compiz. One of the things I most liked about it was being able to use it in different DE's. I don't know why every one's gone their own separate ways -- but I suspect it's at least as much politics as technical considerations, and also strongly suspect that it's in significant part Canonical's fault (in light of my ignorance that last bit might be purely my own personal bias) |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 09, 2013 10:25 AM EDT |
This looks like anti-fragmentation, as nobody but Ubuntu is still using Compiz. |
| caitlyn Jan 09, 2013 12:15 PM EDT |
I agree with Steven. The article, really, is just sour grapes from a developer who has watched desktop after desktop and distribution after distribution move on from his project. DE developers found it easier to integrate the compositing code directly into their respective window managers and to tweak that code for the way their window managers are designed to function. I'd bet if you looked at the various compositing window managers you'd find an awful lot of code in common, not a bunch of developers reinventing the wheel for the sake of it. Using external code that isn't as tightly integrated probably proved more difficult in the long run. Wayland is designed to gradually replace parts of X11 that have been around for a very long time and have some legacy code that really isn't ideal for today's world while preserving compatibility with older hardware by existing side by side with X. Since the underlying code the compositing engine depends on is getting a from the ground up rewrite it makes sense that the compositing code should as well, hence Weston. Again, I see sour grapes more than I see fragmentation here. I still also contend that fragmentation is often another word for choice. I still see choice as an advantage, not a disadvantage. |
| dinotrac Jan 09, 2013 1:58 PM EDT |
I remember back 4 1/2 years ago, when folks I worked with were really hyped up about Compis/Fusion. It was also nearly two years before the original iPad was released. A few things have changed since then. It always sucks to be one of the losers instead of one of the winners, but that's the nature of technology. Things come and things go. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 10, 2013 5:09 PM EDT |
I don't see it so much as sour grapes as the developer knowing that it's time to move on. I could be wrong, but he seemed to be saying, "Even if Canonical wants to continue with Compiz, I don't think that's a good idea, so I'm out." If that's his position, I respect it. He's a kid, I think, and has plenty of time -- and perhaps plenty of energy -- to work on other things. |
| caitlyn Jan 10, 2013 8:33 PM EDT |
Perhaps you're right, Steven. However, describing it as fragmentation cast the reasons for him bowing out in a very negative light. I read it as the Linux world would be a better place if everyone had just adopted his wonderful code and not written their own into the window managers. Your spin is certainly a more positive one than mine :) |
| BernardSwiss Jan 10, 2013 9:42 PM EDT |
Well, that brings us back to my (implied) question -- how necessary, or how beneficial, was it for everyone to write their own, separate, compositor just for their own Desktop Environment, presumably not very compatible or swap-able for anyone else's DE ? Am I missing something? (I can see why KDE might have chosen to do so, but the rest seem more a case of NIH). |
| tracyanne Jan 10, 2013 11:50 PM EDT |
The thing about the boogey man of fragmentation, is that while it was a very real thing in UNIX, due to every man and his dog writing Proprietary extensions that made each Company's UNIX In Computable with another Company's. .It can't act,ually happen in a LINUX/FOSS milleu simply because the Code is open and freely available. which means the issues of lncompatibility, as occured with Proprietary UNIX, cannot occure. |
| Fettoosh Jan 11, 2013 12:03 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... because the Code is open and freely available. which means the issues of lncompatibility, as occured with Proprietary UNIX, cannot occure.[sic] and what some refer to it as fragmentation is nothing more than code evolution for better choice. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 11, 2013 12:59 AM EDT |
OK, "fragmentation" was an unwarranted exaggeration. But from my POV as a relatively non-technical user, the effect is (in this case) rather similar -- it looks like it's getting (needlessly) harder for "typical" users to set up their computer the way they want it. I don't do much of that "tinkering" or mix-and-match stuff -- but having the (practically accessible) option matters to me. (And I don't blame the Compiz dev for this. He's making a rational decision. But whatever happened to the idea that different DE teams and distros should try to make things be more inter-compatible?) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!