I would love to see a release of ubuntu distros kept side by side in comparison with weyland and xmir implemented. And then compared performance, just for the feel of it. They want to use mir for proprietary licensing then so be it. But comparison is worth doing so that others can see the potential of better product instead of thinking of only in terms of weyland for whole linux community.

He has no obligations to defend why he is using Mir. He and his community has all the rights in the world, to decide what is good for the ubuntu. I think debate is pointless. I mean anyone can use their own display server of choice, why defend Weyland and why trash any new display server is beyond me. It's matter of choice. The stunt from KDE people is because they fear adoption of weyland will lack in numbers if the ubuntu and other child distros adopt xmir. There has to be some sort of fear that makes them attack mir and shuttleworth. I don't see a valid argument from non contributing member calling out mir, canonical and ubuntu on fair ground for the choice of using mir. They made their choice of not using ubuntu, weyland and any other stuff, so why chase and attack ubuntu community for their actions?

I did followed this whole debacle. The KDE userbase is attacking canonical, gnome and ubuntu for quite some time. The KDE userbase is the one who is taking this discussion into form of debate. It is not even a debate, it is basically attack of "freedom of choice". Canonical wants to use mir, and rest of the community is against it. Funny how "freedom of choice" works for the so-called liberal linux folks. The way aaron is posting replies on Google plus for this debate, shows his less professional side. I have followed the weyland, mir and xmir discussion already. There is one youtube video where the X developer is giving his genuine thoughts on mir, yet the community is making up their own stories and attacking ubuntu and canonical. I failed to understand one point that if the ubuntu wants to use mir for their own closed community, why they can't use it? Redhat uses plenty of cloud components which are closed and not given to the public unless they are customers, atleast canonical is not doing something like that.

At one point, linux community talks about choice and then when some organization makes use of open source for their own purpose (in turn their choice). Linux community attacks them for that?