Showing posts with label Mark Shuttleworth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Shuttleworth. Show all posts

November 08, 2010

Ubuntu to drop X Server for Wayland

By The Computer Doctor


I didn't see this coming: Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu backer Canonical, has announced that somewhere down the road, Ubuntu will be switching Ubuntu's base graphics system from the venerable X Windows System to Wayland.

In his blog posting, Shuttleworth wrote: "The next major transition for Unity [Ubuntu's new GNOME-based desktop interface that will be introduced in the next Ubuntu release] will be to deliver it on Wayland, the OpenGL-based display management system. We'd like to embrace Wayland early, as much of the work we're doing on uTouch and other input systems will be relevant for Wayland and it's an area we can make a useful contribution to the project."

That's pretty gutsy. The X Window System, which is the networking windowing system that provides the foundation for almost all Unix and Linux desktops, has been too slow for ages. But no one as big as an Ubuntu has ever said that they were willing to replace X with another windowing system.

Wayland is not an X server nor is it an X Server fork, as has sometimes been said. As the Wayland FAQ states, "It's a minimal server that lets clients communicate GEM (Graphics Execution Manager) buffers and information about updates to those buffers to a compositor. To do this, it uses OpenGL, a high-performance, cross-language, cross-platform graphics applications programming interface (API). Wayland also doesn't require new drivers; it builds on the existing Linux graphics APIs and drivers.

Couldn't Canonical just use X? Shuttleworth admitted they could have, but "We don't believe X is setup to deliver the user experience we want, with super-smooth graphics and effects. I understand that it's *possible* to get amazing results with X, but it's extremely hard, and isn't going to get easier. Some of the core goals of X make it harder to achieve these user experiences on X than on native GL, we're choosing to prioritize the quality of experience over those original values, like network transparency."

You won't need to give up X-based applications though to use Wayland. Shuttleworth also said, "We're confident we'll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we'll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all its GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop. We'll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there's no reason for them not to be there on day one either."

Whether KDE or GNOME will want to join is a still unanswered question. Some users have other concerns.

Shuttleworth concluded, "In general, this will all be fine - actually *great* - for folks who have good open source drivers for their graphics hardware. Wayland depends on things they are all moving to support: kernel modesetting, gem buffers and so on. The requirement of EGL is new but consistent with industry standards from Khronos - both GLES (Graphics Layout Engine) and GL will be supported. We'd like to hear from vendors for whom this would be problematic, but hope it provides yet another (and perhaps definitive) motive to move to open source drivers for all Linux work."

Wayland implements a protocol that allows clients – applications – to communicate with a compositor which, in turn, addresses the hardware via the kernel. The compositor's task is to pass keyboard, mouse, touch screen or similar events, to the addressed clients. The clients update their own windows and only inform the compositor that a window area has changed. The compositor will then render the change on screen – and handle such transformations as the resizing or rotating of a window.

Wayland dispenses with many legacies of the X Window system, which is 25 years old – including the long disused X primitives for drawing lines and patterns, functions for handling fonts and colour tables, and network transparency. Current X Window toolkits can be ported to Wayland – a Qt port is already in development. X11 applications can be used with Wayland if the X Server acts as a Wayland client, uses the Wayland input devices and renders its root window or individual X11 windows via Wayland. Apparently, only relatively few changes are required to enable this functionality.

Wayland was started by Red Hat developer Kristian Høgsberg in 2008. Project development is now coordinated by Freedesktop.org.


Enhanced by Zemanta

October 28, 2010

Ubuntu splits from GNOME GUI

By Larry Dignan
Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.


Canonical’s Mark Shuttleworth on Monday detailed how Ubuntu will split from the GNOME user interface for Unity, which is its netbook approach. Simply put, Ubuntu will have a custom user interface.

The reaction to various press reports from Computerworld, Ars Technica and others has gone to extremes:

  • First, Canonical could be portrayed as evil because it’s flipping its middle finger to the open source community.
  • Others say that GNOME was hard to work with.
  • And then you get your Unity sniping.

Don’t expect much unity in the open source community over Ubuntu’s very significant change.

The reality: If Ubuntu really wants to be a player on the desktop it will have to have more control over its user interface. Meanwhile, it makes no sense to have a UI for netbooks and PCs. In fact, the UI is everything. And as Apple has shown you can’t really do interface by committee.

Now Shuttleworth acknowledged Ubuntu has a lot of work to do. Ubuntu OS needs to rethink everything from windows management to what the interface should look like. Ubuntu’s decision to go to a UI over GNOME (GNU Network Object Modeling Environment) is risky. However, if you can take a shot at broader adoption you do it. The Ubuntu interface (right) isn’t going to get the masses excited.

In other words, this split from GNOME looks like a solid decision to me. Dell is selling Ubuntu laptops and if Ubuntu wants other PC makers to follow it needs a hot interface. Let’s face it: If the best thing Ubuntu can do is mimic the interface of Windows it will never get beyond the enthusiasts. Show us something innovative via the Unity pragmatism and maybe you’ll sway others to Ubuntu.


Enhanced by Zemanta

August 18, 2010

Shuttleworth: Oracle's Java Lawsuit 'An Extremely Unsophisticated Move'

Image representing Oracle Corporation as depic...Image via CrunchBaseJava (programming language)Image via WikipediaBy

Sean Michael Kerner



Last week's move by Oracle to sue Google over Java use in the Android open source mobile operating system, may well end up having an impact that effects far more that just Android. And that has some key stakeholders in the open source community concerned.

Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu Linux, is among those in the community who don't see a positive outcome from Oracle's lawsuit, which was based around claims of Linux-based Android wrongfully treading on Oracle's patented Java code and copyrights.

"It's an extremely unsophisticated move by someone at Oracle to launch a patent-based lawsuit, and it's clearly going to be a significant setback for their relationship with the broader open source community, which is a significant part of many of their products," Shuttleworth told InternetNews.com.

Ubuntu is no stranger to working with Sun Microsystems -- original owner of the patents in question -- prior to Sun's acquisition by Oracle. Back in 2006, Canonical, the lead commercial sponsor of Ubuntu, first gained certification for Ubuntu Linux on Sun hardware. The effort was further expanded in 2007 with Sun Java technologies made directly available to Ubuntu Linux users.

"This will complicate the relationships Oracle has with a very important audience, which is the broader open source community," Shuttleworth said. "It will significantly undermine their efforts to establish many of their major products like Java, Solaris and Oracle Unbreakable Linux, and in due course, I'll imagine that they'll quietly wish they hadn't taken this approach."

"I certainly respect their right to take whatever approach they want to take with what they consider to be their property, but I cannot see any way in which this ultimately ends in a constructive outcome for them," he added.

Shuttleworth, like many open source advocates, is critical of software patents in general, which he said aren't a winning strategy for major software vendors.

"Big, traditional software companies have been looking for ways of protecting their franchises and many have waved patents around as a way of entrenching their margins," Shuttleworth said. "But it isn't working out that way."

That open source community leaders like Shuttleworth have long argued against software patents isn't surprising, considering the fights that flare up frequently between the open source and proprietary worlds around intellectual property. For instance, there's the looming specter of Microsoft, which in 2007 claimed that Linux infringed on hundreds of patents, and which hasn't been afraid to use that position to encourage open source users to pay for licenses. Last year, Microsoft inked a number of Linux users to licensing agreements, and sued GPS vendor TomTom over open source patent issues -- a spat that ended in a settlement and another licensing deal for Microsoft.

Last week, Eben Moglen, director-counsel and chairman at the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), told attendees at the LinuxCon conference that he sees patent threats against open source companies on a regular basis, and that the patent crisis facing open source is not going away anytime soon.

But Shuttleworth's view is that eventually big software companies will wake up to the reality that patents actually don't help them.

"I think that large software companies are simply going to find that patents and patent-based thinking keeps them locked in the past," Shuttleworth said. "Fundamentally, the biggest software organizations are the biggest losers from software patents-based litigation."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Hex Converter

Hex To ASCII Converter

Hex:
Ascii:

 

Integer to Byte converter


This is a tool to practice converting between decimal and binary representations. After you have practiced for a while and feel that you know how to do the conversions, take the quiz.
Decimal number to convert:
Binary representation:


Binary number to convert:
Decimal representation: