No. upstart existed before systemd, and was the first of its kind.
Unity exists because GNOME took a different direction from Ubuntu's vision of what the desktop should look like (just look at the number of people who complain about GNOME 3 removing features).
Mir developers have justified their position technically. I understand that their technical position is refuted by Wayland proponents. But if you don't understand the technical arguments yourself, I don't think you can justifiably comment, since there's clearly politics involved in the claims and rebuttals made.
If anything, Ubuntu is infected with a Just Get It Done syndrome. I don't think that's a bad thing. Show me a real world distro with significant user share that ships Wayland, and does it better than Ubuntu. Without that you have no argument.
And even when it was being developed in the open, it still managed to make the vast majority of the community have qualms with the direction GS was heading in.
Hell, Cinnamon is a good case and point, an open source project who had to fork the GS code base in order to add features that they felt the user would prefer.
No. upstart existed before systemd, and was the first of its kind.
Unity exists because GNOME took a different direction from Ubuntu's vision of what the desktop should look like (just look at the number of people who complain about GNOME 3 removing features).
Mir developers have justified their position technically. I understand that their technical position is refuted by Wayland proponents. But if you don't understand the technical arguments yourself, I don't think you can justifiably comment, since there's clearly politics involved in the claims and rebuttals made.
If anything, Ubuntu is infected with a Just Get It Done syndrome. I don't think that's a bad thing. Show me a real world distro with significant user share that ships Wayland, and does it better than Ubuntu. Without that you have no argument.