Quote Originally Posted by Paqman View Post
I was aware of that. However, I'm also wary of taking any he-said she-said back-and-forth in the FOSS blogosphere at face value when we're in the middle of another "drama". The real story tends to come out somewhat down the track once heads have cooled in my experience.
What do you mean by real story? Either something is wrong, or something is right. There's no grey area when it comes to the functionality of Wayland. We're discussing computer programs, not philosophy. In this case Canonical wrote something on the wiki justifying Mir which was wrong. I'm not sure what kind of "real story" could come out to make that seem ok.

Well if you think they made the decision for non-technical reasons then it should have any bearing on their ability to produce code.
Not sure what you're saying here. My point was that they clearly don't know what they're doing.

I'm really not seeing that. What exactly have they done wrong? They don't have to use or support Wayland. Nobody does.
They said they would support Wayland a few years ago. Developed something else in-house for nine months without telling anybody. Made no effort to contact Wayland developers. Came out with Mir and worst of all spread FUD on their wiki. I'd say that is pretty bad.