Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KWin On Mir: A Solution To Non-Existent Problem

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Togga View Post
    That could mean that the former Nokia strategy (before WP luncay) and hard work could bear fruit and be beneficial to all of us.
    It certainly will. It's called Sailfish.

    Originally posted by cardboard View Post
    All distros use Xorg, while Mir is Ubuntu-only. Ubuntu developers should maintain a KWin branch with Mir patches if they want to support it.

    Upstream is the wrong place for distro-specific hacks. This is not a new concept, and has nothing to do with Canonical or Shitterworth or Ubuntu haters or politics or whatever the heck else you think it does.
    Well, I don't really see much bad in accepting a patch for Mir, as long as those who wrote it can maintain it in the future. Have a section for Ubuntu support in the bug tracker, it shouldn't harm anyone as long as Martin is not the one to deal with those bugs. But I suppose it also depends on how invasive the changes would be.

    EDIT: Oh, and this thread is back on topic? What sorcery is this?! :O

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
      I would think it as offering more choice for the user, not limiting it as the rejection of upstream Mir specific patches does.
      No, it doesn't imply that at all. It implies that people are free to look at your source code and do what they want with it. It does not mean that anyone else can force you to do what they want with your code, it doesn't mean you can't have policies about what is and is not allowed in your code, and it doesn't mean you can't have opinions about other peoples' code.

      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
      Well, for now, but I can see other distro's adopting or offering Mir as an option in the future.
      It would be nice if you actually read the original blog post before criticizing it. He flat-out said that if it became something commonly used amongst distros he would be happy to support it. But just peoples' opinions that it might be in the future is not enough, it actually has to happen in the real world.

      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
      It seems that the KWin team's only goal was politicising and exacerbating a pointless debate of Wayland vs Mir which only drives to more fragmentation between Upstream KWin and 'Ubuntu' KWin.
      First, this has nothing to do with the Kwin team, this is the comments of the Kwin maintainer. Again, it would be nice if you knew what we are actually discussing before you criticize it.

      Second, this is not some new policy invented specifically as an attack on Mir, this has been the policy for a long time now. Politicizing would be to ignore his own rules for the sake of one particular distribution.

      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
      Well, I don't really see much bad in accepting a patch for Mir, as long as those who wrote it can maintain it in the future. Have a section for Ubuntu support in the bug tracker, it shouldn't harm anyone as long as Martin is not the one to deal with those bugs. But I suppose it also depends on how invasive the changes would be.
      Martin is never, ever going to do that. He has been burned far too many times by people promising to maintain the code they contribute to Kwin and then disappearing, leaving him to maintain and then eventually strip out the code he was never supposed to have to deal with. Because of this, he again has a strict policy of not accepting any code he is not prepared to maintain himself. He simply doesn't trust such promises anymore, with good reason.
      Last edited by TheBlackCat; 03-11-2013, 03:16 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Apparently Canonical have never contributed anything in kwin.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
          "What is Free Software?

          “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”.

          Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

          The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
          The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
          The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
          The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

          --GNU.org
          So, where in this does it say that KWin maintainer (or any maintainer) has to accept whatever patches someone else wants, or has to implement support for someone else's pet project?

          If Canonical wants Kwin to support Mir, they're free to fork it and implement it themselves, as it's free software. But they don't have any right to make demands to the Kwin mainline.

          Comment


          • #80
            i want to clarify some points that everyone keep getting wrong again and again:
            1.) wayland is a library with a protocol is not a server(like libtcp not like X11 or mysql)
            2.) wayland as a protocol definition don't have to support any complex render operation like minimize, that is a client side problem
            3.) wayland PROTOCOL is only an intermediary to talk directly to the GPU using a common standard with a set of GPU Efficient Languages like GL ES, EGL, OpenGL, OpenVG, TGSI, G/ASM, etc.
            4.) weston is an entirely separated project aka IS NOT WAYLAND OR A PART OF WAYLAND, it means Weston is a client side compositor for reference[as Kwin is an X11 compositor not X11 itself]
            5.) wayland as protocol do support Minimize

            Proper explanation of 5:
            a.) is not a problem of support, remember wayland only work at surface/input side AKA is very very low level and in this level the problem of minimize is trivial
            b.) why weston don't support it, then? because there are many ways to solve the issues and most likely they are thinking to death which one is the more efficient[remember all GPU don't work the same]
            b1.) how many ways you can have to minimize LOL? <--- just from the top of my head the easy ones
            1.) treat every surface[aka processed texture in GPU framebuffer] as an FBO/PBO and once the set surface is set as minimized it should just be marked as not renderable, so the next refresh cycle the GPU don't process that specific surface but you keep the RAM used[fine for normal desktop bad for gaming]
            2.) once the surface received the minimize command the surface/s are destroyed entirely and flushed in the next refresh cycle and once the surface is marked as not minimized wayland inform the client to render the entire surface again so the surface it shown the next refresh cycle[awesome for gaming bad for responsiveness]
            3.) once the surface is marked as minimized the surface if hot copied to an alternate SHM/KMS in RAM[as CPU RAM] buffer and flushed from the GPU framebuffer in the next refresh cycle and once the surface is marked as not minimized the SHM/KMS RAM buffer will be hot copied back to the GPU framebuffer and rendered in the next refresh cycle[prolly 50/50 but can punish you I/O--RAM subsystem if you have too many surfaces and prolly would need some smart in memory constrained systems]
            4.) smarter solutions like allocating algorithm, surface compression, surface decompose, etc
            5.) this can be improved at Toolkit[aka client level] too using client side surface clone compositing techniques, for example every widget in qt[combobox buttons glyphetc] can be an unique surface and you can actually compose with this pieces the app final visual of the surface in a blank surface that references at X,Y(s) the needed memory position for rendering[aka ultra low GPU memory usage and uber fast rendering]

            so the actual problem is about choose the better method/s[can be a combination of many] to find the best solution not a wayland deficiency or lack of vision or protocol BooBoo[is possible though to standarize it at protocol level with an extension if the compositor dont wanna do it directly]

            as always if i miss a point or i wrongly understood a wayland capability you can correct me

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by dee. View Post
              So, where in this does it say that KWin maintainer (or any maintainer) has to accept whatever patches someone else wants, or has to implement support for someone else's pet project?

              If Canonical wants Kwin to support Mir, they're free to fork it and implement it themselves, as it's free software. But they don't have any right to make demands to the Kwin mainline.
              If I researched correctly, Mir isn't even GPL, it's under some sort of commitment license.. Moreover, the Kwin developer *and pretty much everyone who does not work for Canonical* know that if they had only asked, they would have been able to find solutions to their "problems"

              Ubuntu's popularity could mean more work *depending on how far Mir goes* for the Wayland guys in making things compatible.

              ..Just forking Wayland would've been an easier solution than making your own bloody display server

              Also: "Canonical’s decision to keep development of Ubuntu 13.04 closed was also controversial. Although by releasing its code under a GPL license, Ubuntu remains open source by the Open Source Initiative’s definition, it violates the spirit of openness and transparency. Rather than working out in the open and accepting feedback on message boards — or code contributions through a system like Github — Canonical chose to work in secret, allowing only its inner circle to contribute. Some call this approach “throwing code over the wall.” It’s another sign that Canonical wants greater control over its open source projects." --http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/ubuntu-mir/

              The way Canonical is going: They'll end up makig some reason not to use the Linux Kernel anymore and make their own.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
                Some call this approach “throwing code over the wall.” It’s another sign that Canonical wants greater control over its open source projects."
                I call it commercial intrest, do something fancy before you're obsoleted by competition.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Togga View Post
                  I call it commercial intrest, do something fancy before you're obsoleted by competition.
                  GNU/Linux was never about competition. Or anything commercial for that matter.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                    No, it doesn't imply that at all. It implies that people are free to look at your source code and do what they want with it. It does not mean that anyone else can force you to do what they want with your code, it doesn't mean you can't have policies about what is and is not allowed in your code, and it doesn't mean you can't have opinions about other peoples' code.


                    It would be nice if you actually read the original blog post before criticizing it. He flat-out said that if it became something commonly used amongst distros he would be happy to support it. But just peoples' opinions that it might be in the future is not enough, it actually has to happen in the real world.


                    First, this has nothing to do with the Kwin team, this is the comments of the Kwin maintainer. Again, it would be nice if you knew what we are actually discussing before you criticize it.

                    Second, this is not some new policy invented specifically as an attack on Mir, this has been the policy for a long time now. Politicizing would be to ignore his own rules for the sake of one particular distribution.


                    Martin is never, ever going to do that. He has been burned far too many times by people promising to maintain the code they contribute to Kwin and then disappearing, leaving him to maintain and then eventually strip out the code he was never supposed to have to deal with. Because of this, he again has a strict policy of not accepting any code he is not prepared to maintain himself. He simply doesn't trust such promises anymore, with good reason.
                    The literal definition, yes, but not the Free Software movement has evolved beyond a simple source requirement. It has spawned a community based around offering choice.
                    These statements contradict that ideal, and quite frankly only serve to further politicise a debate that doesn't need to be politicised because, it's simply software.

                    I also noticed that you didn't mention the AUR port of Mir, actual proof that it's being ported to other Linux distros, unless that isn't 'real' enough for you.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                      The literal definition, yes, but not the Free Software movement has evolved beyond a simple source requirement. It has spawned a community based around offering choice.
                      These statements contradict that ideal,
                      Choice doesn't mean that people are not allowed to have opinions. Freedom means, amongst other things, freedom of speech. You can't have freedom of speech if people are muzzled, if they are denied the right to voice their opinion.

                      Free software does not mean that all ideas are equally valid, and it does not mean that a software maintainer or software community has to implement every idea and every patch everyone comes up with. That is not free software, because it takes away the freedoms of developers. That is not software at all, it is just chaos.

                      And where is Martin's right to choose? For someone who is so gung-ho about choice, you sure are quick to deny people the right to make choices you disagree with.

                      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                      and quite frankly only serve to further politicise a debate that doesn't need to be politicised because, it's simply software.
                      The debate was politicized by Canonical from the original announcement. If they didn't want that they could have handled things very differently. But everything they have done, every decision they made, every announcement, has only served to make the situation more politicized. It became politicized to the point where Martin simply couldn't stay out of the discussion.

                      Again, if you had bothered to read the blog posts, you would know he had gotten inundated with emails asking what his position on the pre-existing debate was. So he answered the question he had been asked over and over. What do you expect him to just, just ignore the huge volume of email he was getting? What sort of maintainer just ignores his users?

                      Perhaps if Canonical had handled things differently Martin would not have had to get so involved. Perhaps if Shuttleworth hadn't lied about Martin's plans for Mir then Martin wouldn't have had to correct him.

                      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                      I also noticed that you didn't mention the AUR port of Mir, actual proof that it's being ported to other Linux distros, unless that isn't 'real' enough for you.
                      Yes, I didn't mention the experimental attempts of a third-party group just to get a pre-pre-alpha version just to build properly on another distro, because I was hoping that was more a rhetorical remark rather than what you thought was a serious case of another distro supporting Mir.

                      Yeah, some people will probably try to build it on other distros. They did the same thing with Unity. Pretty much everyone gave up on that idea eventually because it was such a pain in the ass with little benefit. We will see how the similar efforts that are bound to occur with Mir turn out. If they get established then we can talk, but just someone trying to get it working hardly counts as serious support from other distros.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
                        GNU/Linux was never about competition. Or anything commercial for that matter.
                        Welcome to Canonicals world!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                          I also noticed that you didn't mention the AUR port of Mir, actual proof that it's being ported to other Linux distros, unless that isn't 'real' enough for you.
                          A lot of stuff ends up in the AUR - it is a system that is completely based on user submission with marginal review or quality control. I would be very reticent when it comes to taking that as any kind of third-party endorsement, and would definitely not take it as any kind of endorsement of the project from Arch.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X