taking Unity to the next level

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

taking Unity to the next level

Oliver Ries
Hi,

I wanted to give you a quick heads up regarding Unity in preparation of
this weeks UDS.

The traction that Ubuntu Touch is creating is great and the team is
happy with where this is leading us. However, in order to implement the
vision of converged devices, some changes to our Display Stack are
necessary.

After thorough research, looking at existing options and weighing in
costs & benefits we have decided to roll our own Display Server, Mir
(rf. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec).

None of the existing solutions would allow us to implement our vision
without taking major compromises which would come at the cost of user
experience and quality. We will be running sessions at UDS to discuss
questions and take feedback.

Also, driven by Ubuntu Touch we are starting to move Unity over to a
Qt/QML based implementation, embracing Qt as a community backed
technology for our offerings. We are looking at tackling the transition
from the Nux based implementation to a Qt/QML based implementation
component by component and are striving to do that in a transparent way
for the user. This topic is also up for discussion at UDS and we are
providing a spec at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnityNextSpec.

I am providing more context about these topics at
http://www.olli-ries.com/mir-unity-qml-unity-apis-unity .

Please feel free to reach out to us during UDS and later on to discuss
any questions.

best,
Olli



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Scott Kitterman-3
On Monday, March 04, 2013 05:46:54 PM Oliver Ries wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I wanted to give you a quick heads up regarding Unity in preparation of
> this weeks UDS.
>
> The traction that Ubuntu Touch is creating is great and the team is
> happy with where this is leading us. However, in order to implement the
> vision of converged devices, some changes to our Display Stack are
> necessary.
>
> After thorough research, looking at existing options and weighing in
> costs & benefits we have decided to roll our own Display Server, Mir
> (rf. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec).
>
> None of the existing solutions would allow us to implement our vision
> without taking major compromises which would come at the cost of user
> experience and quality. We will be running sessions at UDS to discuss
> questions and take feedback.
>
> Also, driven by Ubuntu Touch we are starting to move Unity over to a
> Qt/QML based implementation, embracing Qt as a community backed
> technology for our offerings. We are looking at tackling the transition
> from the Nux based implementation to a Qt/QML based implementation
> component by component and are striving to do that in a transparent way
> for the user. This topic is also up for discussion at UDS and we are
> providing a spec at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnityNextSpec.
>
> I am providing more context about these topics at
> http://www.olli-ries.com/mir-unity-qml-unity-apis-unity .
>
> Please feel free to reach out to us during UDS and later on to discuss
> any questions.

Does that mean that after next  April, the X stack and Wayland will no longer
be maintained by Canonical, so that flavors that are using a standard display
stack are on their own?

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Bryce Harrington-5
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 01:39:36PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Monday, March 04, 2013 05:46:54 PM Oliver Ries wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to give you a quick heads up regarding Unity in preparation of
> > this weeks UDS.
> >
> > The traction that Ubuntu Touch is creating is great and the team is
> > happy with where this is leading us. However, in order to implement the
> > vision of converged devices, some changes to our Display Stack are
> > necessary.
> >
> > After thorough research, looking at existing options and weighing in
> > costs & benefits we have decided to roll our own Display Server, Mir
> > (rf. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec).
> >
> > None of the existing solutions would allow us to implement our vision
> > without taking major compromises which would come at the cost of user
> > experience and quality. We will be running sessions at UDS to discuss
> > questions and take feedback.
> >
> > Also, driven by Ubuntu Touch we are starting to move Unity over to a
> > Qt/QML based implementation, embracing Qt as a community backed
> > technology for our offerings. We are looking at tackling the transition
> > from the Nux based implementation to a Qt/QML based implementation
> > component by component and are striving to do that in a transparent way
> > for the user. This topic is also up for discussion at UDS and we are
> > providing a spec at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnityNextSpec.
> >
> > I am providing more context about these topics at
> > http://www.olli-ries.com/mir-unity-qml-unity-apis-unity .
> >
> > Please feel free to reach out to us during UDS and later on to discuss
> > any questions.
>
> Does that mean that after next  April, the X stack and Wayland will no longer
> be maintained by Canonical, so that flavors that are using a standard display
> stack are on their own?

Wayland is not maintained by Canonical currently.  We do package it, as
it's required by mesa and some other projects, and that'll likely
continue as is.  Ideally we just sync it from Debian.

The X.org stack itself will probably be around for a good long while,
since legacy apps will need it for their rootless X sessions, and for
cases where Mir doesn't work right.  Our level of maintenance efforts
there will probably taper off over time in favor of Mir, though, maybe
to the point we're just syncing from Debian.  So yes for flavors staying
on X.org bases may need to be more involved in tending to their
foundation, but you'll likely always have the Debian base to build from
which I expect should be solid for as long as X11 remains relevant.

Bryce

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Petko
In reply to this post by Oliver Ries
  As the schematics are still being laid out I want to voice my thoughts
on application access to resources . You have surely considered the
subject and it is mentioned in the Wiki texts , but there must be a big
emphasis on it , since in order to have real security every app/service
should be registered in Mir with the security flags that the user has
agreed to. Much like Android , but to differentiate the approach -
Ubuntu should apply this at a lower level (not at Software Center
(installation) level) . For example if the user installs an app that
requests (via some predefined method) access to sensitive data /
functionality through the Software centre - he gets a prompt for the
security clearance then and the app is then registered with Mir . But if
the app is installed via some other service or manually and it requests
access the user should be prompted in the same fashion if he'll grant
the permissions (on the first run only that is) .
     As you may tell I don't know that much about the Ubuntu internals ,
but I figured the idea is pretty universal and I may throw it out there
for your consideration . Again - the idea is to cover all use cases ,
and not just keep our hands clean with a Software centre warning.

Petko


On 03/04/2013 07:46 PM, Oliver Ries wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I wanted to give you a quick heads up regarding Unity in preparation of
> this weeks UDS.
>
> The traction that Ubuntu Touch is creating is great and the team is
> happy with where this is leading us. However, in order to implement the
> vision of converged devices, some changes to our Display Stack are
> necessary.
>
> After thorough research, looking at existing options and weighing in
> costs & benefits we have decided to roll our own Display Server, Mir
> (rf. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec).
>
> None of the existing solutions would allow us to implement our vision
> without taking major compromises which would come at the cost of user
> experience and quality. We will be running sessions at UDS to discuss
> questions and take feedback.
>
> Also, driven by Ubuntu Touch we are starting to move Unity over to a
> Qt/QML based implementation, embracing Qt as a community backed
> technology for our offerings. We are looking at tackling the transition
> from the Nux based implementation to a Qt/QML based implementation
> component by component and are striving to do that in a transparent way
> for the user. This topic is also up for discussion at UDS and we are
> providing a spec at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnityNextSpec.
>
> I am providing more context about these topics at
> http://www.olli-ries.com/mir-unity-qml-unity-apis-unity .
>
> Please feel free to reach out to us during UDS and later on to discuss
> any questions.
>
> best,
> Olli
>
>
>


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Scott Kitterman-3
In reply to this post by Bryce Harrington-5
On Monday, March 04, 2013 11:45:57 AM Bryce Harrington wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 01:39:36PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, March 04, 2013 05:46:54 PM Oliver Ries wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I wanted to give you a quick heads up regarding Unity in preparation of
> > > this weeks UDS.
> > >
> > > The traction that Ubuntu Touch is creating is great and the team is
> > > happy with where this is leading us. However, in order to implement the
> > > vision of converged devices, some changes to our Display Stack are
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > After thorough research, looking at existing options and weighing in
> > > costs & benefits we have decided to roll our own Display Server, Mir
> > > (rf. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec).
> > >
> > > None of the existing solutions would allow us to implement our vision
> > > without taking major compromises which would come at the cost of user
> > > experience and quality. We will be running sessions at UDS to discuss
> > > questions and take feedback.
> > >
> > > Also, driven by Ubuntu Touch we are starting to move Unity over to a
> > > Qt/QML based implementation, embracing Qt as a community backed
> > > technology for our offerings. We are looking at tackling the transition
> > > from the Nux based implementation to a Qt/QML based implementation
> > > component by component and are striving to do that in a transparent way
> > > for the user. This topic is also up for discussion at UDS and we are
> > > providing a spec at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnityNextSpec.
> > >
> > > I am providing more context about these topics at
> > > http://www.olli-ries.com/mir-unity-qml-unity-apis-unity .
> > >
> > > Please feel free to reach out to us during UDS and later on to discuss
> > > any questions.
> >
> > Does that mean that after next  April, the X stack and Wayland will no
> > longer be maintained by Canonical, so that flavors that are using a
> > standard display stack are on their own?
>
> Wayland is not maintained by Canonical currently.  We do package it, as
> it's required by mesa and some other projects, and that'll likely
> continue as is.  Ideally we just sync it from Debian.
>
> The X.org stack itself will probably be around for a good long while,
> since legacy apps will need it for their rootless X sessions, and for
> cases where Mir doesn't work right.  Our level of maintenance efforts
> there will probably taper off over time in favor of Mir, though, maybe
> to the point we're just syncing from Debian.  So yes for flavors staying
> on X.org bases may need to be more involved in tending to their
> foundation, but you'll likely always have the Debian base to build from
> which I expect should be solid for as long as X11 remains relevant.

Wayland was relevant because up until now, that had been the thing after X
windows for Canonical.  It's an established FOSS project with broad interest.  
If Canonical had at some point switched it's primary focus to Wayland, then it
would have been ~easy for other desktop environments where it was supported to
switch (KDE upstream - specifically Kwin - is supporting this).

Now that this isn't the plan, we're kind of stuck as at best second class
citizens in the long run.  Also, one of the advantages that being part of
Ubuntu brings to other flavors like Kubuntu is the support of new hardware due
to Canonical's hardware enablement work.  Sync'ing from Debian loses us that.

Projecting out a year or two, I'm personally starting to run short of reasons
why a non-Unity desktop flavor of Ubuntu makes sense as a value proposition.  I
can probably build a current KDE + Debian Wheezy derivative with less work
than it'll take to continue to maintain anything similar withing Ubuntu.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Bryce Harrington-5
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:35:21PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, March 04, 2013 11:45:57 AM Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 01:39:36PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 04, 2013 05:46:54 PM Oliver Ries wrote:
> citizens in the long run.  Also, one of the advantages that being part of
> Ubuntu brings to other flavors like Kubuntu is the support of new hardware due
> to Canonical's hardware enablement work.  Sync'ing from Debian loses us that.

Not really.  For display hardware, most of the enablement work is kernel
level stuff.  A lot of that is either backported from upstream, or else
is usually taken upstream eventually, so even if you switch to being a
Debian derivative you'd probably still benefit in the long run.

Bryce

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Ted Gould-2
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-3
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 15:35 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Projecting out a year or two, I'm personally starting to run short of reasons 
why a non-Unity desktop flavor of Ubuntu makes sense as a value proposition.  I 
can probably build a current KDE + Debian Wheezy derivative with less work 
than it'll take to continue to maintain anything similar withing Ubuntu.

For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing time to working other more KDE specific stuff.  I don't know, seems like a golden time for Kubuntu to me.

Ted
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Scott Kitterman-3
On Monday, March 04, 2013 03:35:42 PM Ted Gould wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 15:35 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> +AD4 Projecting out a year or two, I'm personally starting to run short of
> reasons +AD4 why a non-Unity desktop flavor of Ubuntu makes sense as a
> value proposition.  I +AD4 can probably build a current KDE +- Debian
> Wheezy derivative with less work +AD4 than it'll take to continue to
> maintain anything similar withing Ubuntu.
>
>
> For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu
> specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack
> working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by
> Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing time to working other more KDE specific
> stuff.  I don't know, seems like a golden time for Kubuntu to me.

Canonical has historically patched things very heavily and without community
pressure not done a great job of getting stuff upstream.  Personally, I don't
view increased Canonical involvement as a likely net win.  I expect we'll end
up spending more time debugging subtle incompatibilities than we save.  
Historically, Qt4 was mostly sync'ed from Debian.

Although the right people haven't been online to ask since this latest
bombshell got dropped, I'm not anticipating a great deal of enthusiasm from
Kwin upstream for the idea of supporting a distro unique backend.

It seems like we're totally screwed to me, but then it may just be that I'm
jaded from several major pronouncements that are completely changing the
character of what Ubuntu is.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Jono Bacon-3
In reply to this post by Ted Gould-2
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Gould <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 15:35 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Projecting out a year or two, I'm personally starting to run short of
> reasons
> why a non-Unity desktop flavor of Ubuntu makes sense as a value proposition.
> I
> can probably build a current KDE + Debian Wheezy derivative with less work
> than it'll take to continue to maintain anything similar withing Ubuntu.
>
>
> For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu
> specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack
> working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by
> Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing time to working other more KDE specific
> stuff.  I don't know, seems like a golden time for Kubuntu to me.

I was thinking the same thing - surely if we have a solid Qt stack, an
extensive app developer program based around that stack that keeps it
fresh, as well as the actively maintained foundational pieces (e.g.
kernel, bootstrapping layers), wouldn't this help Kubuntu more? It
seems the primary blocker here is whether KDE will run on Mir, but if
Mir offers a compelling display server, maybe upstream would be
interested in making use of it?

    Jono

--
Jono Bacon
Ubuntu Community Manager
www.ubuntu.com / www.jonobacon.org
www.identi.ca/jonobacon www.twitter.com/jonobacon

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Scott Kitterman-3
On Monday, March 04, 2013 01:50:22 PM Jono Bacon wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Gould <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 15:35 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > Projecting out a year or two, I'm personally starting to run short of
> > reasons
> > why a non-Unity desktop flavor of Ubuntu makes sense as a value
> > proposition. I
> > can probably build a current KDE + Debian Wheezy derivative with less work
> > than it'll take to continue to maintain anything similar withing Ubuntu.
> >
> >
> > For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu
> > specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack
> > working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by
> > Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing time to working other more KDE specific
> > stuff.  I don't know, seems like a golden time for Kubuntu to me.
>
> I was thinking the same thing - surely if we have a solid Qt stack, an
> extensive app developer program based around that stack that keeps it
> fresh, as well as the actively maintained foundational pieces (e.g.
> kernel, bootstrapping layers), wouldn't this help Kubuntu more? It
> seems the primary blocker here is whether KDE will run on Mir, but if
> Mir offers a compelling display server, maybe upstream would be
> interested in making use of it?

As long as Canonical doesn't follow their usual practice of patching stuff
without upstreaming, then that might be the case.  An incompatible Qt5 is just
about the worst case scenario.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Jono Bacon-3
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Scott Kitterman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As long as Canonical doesn't follow their usual practice of patching stuff
> without upstreaming, then that might be the case.  An incompatible Qt5 is just
> about the worst case scenario.

This seems like a good chance for us to work more closely with the
Kubuntu community, not less, to help us achieve our goals with the SDK
but in a way that doesn't result in unnecessary divergences.  Would
you be interested in helping to work with us on this?

It just seems to me Ubuntu and Kubuntu is more closely aligned than
ever - sure there are differences, but there is a lot of commonality
on the foundation, and the convergence story in Ubuntu will result in
useful foundational work that will benefit KDE across these different
devices too (e.g. Plasma Active).

   Jono

--
Jono Bacon
Ubuntu Community Manager
www.ubuntu.com / www.jonobacon.org
www.identi.ca/jonobacon www.twitter.com/jonobacon

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Scott Kitterman-3
On Monday, March 04, 2013 01:56:43 PM Jono Bacon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Scott Kitterman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > As long as Canonical doesn't follow their usual practice of patching stuff
> > without upstreaming, then that might be the case.  An incompatible Qt5 is
> > just about the worst case scenario.
>
> This seems like a good chance for us to work more closely with the
> Kubuntu community, not less, to help us achieve our goals with the SDK
> but in a way that doesn't result in unnecessary divergences.  Would
> you be interested in helping to work with us on this?
>
> It just seems to me Ubuntu and Kubuntu is more closely aligned than
> ever - sure there are differences, but there is a lot of commonality
> on the foundation, and the convergence story in Ubuntu will result in
> useful foundational work that will benefit KDE across these different
> devices too (e.g. Plasma Active).

We've long had a policy of not incorporating distro design changes until there
was agreement from upstream to support them.  Sometimes, due to release
schedules, it may take awhile, so we carry the patches for some time, but the
key is to have a dialog with the relevant upstream and get their concurrence
BEFORE they go into the Ubuntu repositories.  As an example, the touch work
that Canonical has done is in Qt, as is the needed support for global menus.

Since at least Karmic this has periodically been a source of tension.  I would
like it if everyone would just do things this way and we'd stop having to play
enforcer.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Aurélien Naldi
In reply to this post by Oliver Ries
Hi all,

I usually do not comment on this list but this message raises so much hope and fear at once that it gets hard to resist!
Let me be clear: the mir announce is a surprise, kind of a big deal and raises a lot of questions. I do not mean to be overly critical here, but these questions have to be addressed if canonical want devs and tech-enthusiasts to follow them!
I'm asking all this because I care about the future of ubuntu!

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Oliver Ries <[hidden email]> wrote:
After thorough research, looking at existing options and weighing in
costs & benefits we have decided to roll our own Display Server, Mir
(rf. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec).

None of the existing solutions would allow us to implement our vision
without taking major compromises which would come at the cost of user
experience and quality. We will be running sessions at UDS to discuss
questions and take feedback.


For sure it is hard to judge at such early state, but the mir code repository is several months old, it seems far from complete and you have barely more than one year left to finish it and send it into the wild according to your plan, so it does seem ambitious!

The rationale behind Mir sounds good, a move from X to something simpler and better suited for modern expectations is highly welcome, but it remains unclear why this could not have been done in wayland (which was the designed successor for many including ubuntu until very recently).

I'm probably missing something here as the ubuntu devs are a lot more familiar than me with all this. Yet providing good reasons for your choices is important if you want devs to follow you.
In my dreams, here are some example of valid reasons:
* canonical want complete control of the stack and has the gut to maintain it all. It is scary, but it is bold. It will raise critics and you will have to prove that you can pull it off, but if you do it is worth it
* a set of use cases that are relevant and that can not be achieved using existing code. This has to be detailed and discussed with maintainers of these project if they claim that it is possible.

The spec page does not talk about control but only about technical reasons, so let's focus on them. For me, the scary part is that wayland involved many experienced people for a fairly long period of time: are you sure you can do better with less resources in a much shorter amount of time?
For sure large chuncks of wayland time was spent defining a good protocol and you can learn a lot from it, but I see two options here:
* either you do something vastly different from wayland, and you will still need lots of time to get tons of details right
* or you take most of wayland ideas and tweak some parts, and it would probably have been as fast (and way more popular) to (try) integrate these changes in wayland itself (or fork it)

The mirspec page mentions a "protocol agnostic core", which wayland does not provide. Indeed, wayland is all about the protocol itself, but a different wayland server could probably provide this. The mir client lib would probably not be used by clients directly but rather by toolkit backends, so it is fairly irrelevant. If Qt already runs on top of wayland, what does Mir improve for clients?

Beyond these doubts, I have a couple of questions about interoperability with existing applications. You plan a proxy X server, but will this support DRI efficiently?
I suppose you plan a Mir backend for cairo and clutter (probably needed for GTK support), what about SDL and similar libs?
Any plan for network transparency?

I imagine there are tons of such "details" to be ironed out before you can replace X, and you probably thought about many of them already, a few more wiki pages to clarify them would probably calm down some of the flamewars ;)

Also, driven by Ubuntu Touch we are starting to move Unity over to a
Qt/QML based implementation, embracing Qt as a community backed
technology for our offerings. We are looking at tackling the transition
from the Nux based implementation to a Qt/QML based implementation
component by component and are striving to do that in a transparent way
for the user. This topic is also up for discussion at UDS and we are
providing a spec at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnityNextSpec.


Unity moving to QML sounds like the right choice to implement what you want. One more rewrite sounds like a lot of trouble but this one is probably worth it.
Does this mean no more compiz at last? I mostly hope it will mean that the dash stops being painfully slow on a computer where gnome-shell flies ;)


Now I guess we will have to wait and see how this turns out, but it looks like canonical is making a huge bet here: if it succeeds, it could be the first really popular linux distro (beside android) and bring fantastic improvements for all of us. If it fails, canonical would loose a lot of money and more importantly trust for other open source communities!
I really think that to succeed, some open source leader need to have strong opinions and make tough decisions, thus I like seeing you take such risks, hoping it will be for the best if you succeed, but it will be a tough journey!
I only regret the apparent lack of communications with other projects. While this worked out well for apple, it is also part of why I avoid them as a customer, I really hope canonical will not follow this path too far!

Best

--
Aurélien Naldi

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Jeremy Bicha-2
In reply to this post by Ted Gould-2
On 4 March 2013 16:35, Ted Gould <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu
> specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack
> working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by
> Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing time to working other more KDE specific
> stuff.  I don't know, seems like a golden time for Kubuntu to me.

I don't know; a rolling release next month doesn't seem to me to be a
golden time for Ubuntu or the flavors. I'd like the ability to
recommend a reasonably stable Ubuntu with the latest GNOME stable
release. For GNOME 3.8, this was scheduled to happen next October (for
13.10). Now it sounds like we can recommend users either run an LTS
with a new GNOME release every 2 years or they could try running the
daily build. Those running the daily build have little protection from
a broken upload so that's a very scary idea to me. Personally I've
been running the Ubuntu development release for years now, but it's
the early adopter non-developers that will be hurt badly by this
especially in the first six months.

If we fail to keep the development release mostly stable, then
Ubuntu's standing will be hurt as most major distros release once or
twice per year, not just once every two years. Ubuntu will be taking
on a lot of risk if we push the rolling release too quickly. I want to
be able to recommend the non-LTS Ubuntu to any of the "power users" in
my LUG but until we have the capability to hold a huge potentially
disruptive update (like GNOME 3.6 > 3.8 or a new X stack or a new
kernel, etc.) for at least a few days first, I won't be able to
recommend they use anything but the LTS or another distro.

Since currently much of the featured Ubuntu desktop uses GNOME
components, it's not feasible to backport new GNOME releases without
breaking parts of the Unity experience. This seems to put Ubuntu GNOME
in the same bad position as Kubuntu.

Jeremy

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel