Shared publicly  - 
+Mark Shuttleworth, it would be rather helpful, if you'd elaborate on this a bit more -- because I'm sure many people would find that a contentious issue:

"Mir’s reason for existence is that I see Wayland ending up with the same set of problems that X had – it promises that everyone can get what they want, which just leaves everyone slightly incompatible with everyone else."

While we're at it, another separate statement of yours draws (I'd even say grabs) attention:

"In addition, I am concerned that the people funding Mir Wayland have a very specific agenda and no intention of letting Canonical succeed if they can help it." (correction mine)

People are throwing FUD at Canonical.  Now, it appears, you throw FUD at Intel?  What is this, corporate politics?  Why not fight them in the open?  Call Intel out on their grip on Wayland, if there is such a thing, as you seem to imply?
Michael Weber's profile photoKosyrev Serge's profile photoHomer Slated's profile photo
What would be the incentive for Intel to sink Canonical?
+Michael Weber, Intel is a large corporation, with unpredictable motivation patterns.  But I agree that it is hard to think of anything obvious.
Intel is a highly disreputable company with a history of criminal business tactics. Two of the most significant examples are its bribery of Dell to exclude AMD processors from Dell's products, for which both Intel and Dell were successfully prosecuted, and Intel's belligerent sabotage of the OLPC charity, again in order to attack AMD (the processors powering the OLPC XO laptop).

OLPC 60 Minutes

So it's highly unsurprising that Shuttleworth views Weyland (and now, by which Weyland is now owned) with great suspicion, especially given the involvement of various Red Hat people (a company Torvalds accused of "deep throating Microsoft"), such as  Lennart Poettering, who seems to have a very dubious agenda.

Given that, I'm beginning to see more clearly where both Shuttleworth and his Mir project are coming from.
Add a comment...