Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

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

  • Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Where we fundamentally disagree: You believe that "desktop Linux" can only be successful if Canonical succeeds, thus you expect others (ie: the entire community / distros) to be a push overs for Canonical, because if we don't -> then We are stuck with Apple or MS.

    Ubuntu is investing in Ubuntu, not "Desktop" Linux.
    Not quite. I believe, (end-user) desktop Linux can only be successful with Canonicals help right now. At any time, someone with a big pocket may pick this up, but to wait for that seems overly optimistic to me.
    And right here I'm not interested in whether the community should or should not treat Canonical that way (since that's not my decision to make), but I'm interested in what's the way out (out of a MS/Apple world into a MS/Apple/Linux world and not into a MS/Apple/Canonical one).

    Whether or not this is a good way out, would you agree, that it is a way out (even if it's a bad one)?

    The difference is, I'm (trying) to see this more from a scientific view/attitude, than from a political one.

    Originally posted by phoen1x View Post
    you just keep praising Canonical all over this thread.
    I was in fact blaming them for pretty much all the struggle in the Linux desktop world right now. l2r

    Originally posted by eidolon View Post
    [How can anyone be certain that LinuxGamer isn't BO$$ playing both sides of the fence? ]
    Judging by his style, I already thought the same.
    Last edited by alexThunder; 07-21-2013, 07:38 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by przemoli View Post
      Same goes for Wayland right now...
      But Wayland-specific code was included.
      The problem here is not the programs (Wayland/Mir) but the distributions (but most people here are mixing that up) :
      Wayland needs a patch in mesa: Every distribution out there needs it. So either every distribution needs to maintain exactly the same patches or mesa simply accepts them upstream. Sure it's better here to accept them upstream to avoid duplicated work.
      Mir needs a patch in mesa: Only Canonical needs it. So either Canonical maintains the patches or mesa does. What's the point for mesa doing Canonicals work other than having less resources for other things?

      See? As soon as other distributions want to use Mir it makes sense to accept such patches upstream to avoid duplicated work, but nobody outside of Canonical told they want to use Mir, so right now such patches should be rejected.

      Is it really that hard for all the Ubuntu fanbois here to understand that simple logic?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TAXI View Post
        The problem here is not the programs (Wayland/Mir) but the distributions (but most people here are mixing that up) :
        Wayland needs a patch in mesa: Every distribution out there needs it. So either every distribution needs to maintain exactly the same patches or mesa simply accepts them upstream. Sure it's better here to accept them upstream to avoid duplicated work.
        Mir needs a patch in mesa: Only Canonical needs it. So either Canonical maintains the patches or mesa does. What's the point for mesa doing Canonicals work other than having less resources for other things?

        See? As soon as other distributions want to use Mir it makes sense to accept such patches upstream to avoid duplicated work, but nobody outside of Canonical told they want to use Mir, so right now such patches should be rejected.

        Is it really that hard for all the Ubuntu fanbois here to understand that simple logic?
        While I think this is actually a perfectly sane policy in general, they probably exclude the majority of users. Thus, they're serving distros instead of people.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
          they probably exclude the majority of users.
          Wrong. As long as Canonical is the only one needing these patches they can apply them downstream just fine. It wouldn't make any difference for the end user (Ubuntu ships with the patched mesa, no matter if they are applied downstream or upstream and as no other distribution will ship with Mir there's no downside).

          //EDIT: Don't get me wrong: If Wayland would be used by one distribution only I would say exactly the same about Wayland specific patches and as soon as another distribution wants to use Mir I'm for applying patches upstream. But right now this isn't the case.
          Last edited by V10lator; 07-21-2013, 07:52 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BO$$
            Exactly what I'm saying but I'm a troll it seems.
            You're far too dogmatic and extreme in your views and tone, that's why people consider you a troll.

            Well, and sometimes you're wrong

            Originally posted by BO$$
            Windows 7 > anything linux
            At least from a technical standpoint, I'd object to this.

            Originally posted by BO$$
            Microsoft didn't get where they are because of being evil.
            But they did a lot of "evil" things to maintain and spread their share.

            Originally posted by TAXI View Post
            Wrong. As long as Canonical is the only one needing these patches they can apply them downstream just fine. It wouldn't make any difference for the end user (Ubuntu ships with the patched mesa, no matter if they are applied downstream or upstream and as no other distribution will ship with Mir there's no downside).
            If Canonical patches Mesa downstream, you can't say that Mesa is including the majority per se (which, by coincidence is using Ubuntu). Again, I was not judging about whether or not this is bad at all (actually I still consider it sane, not to include distro specific code).

            Originally posted by TAXI View Post
            //EDIT: Don't get me wrong: If Wayland would be used by one distribution only I would say exactly the same about Wayland specific patches and as soon as another distribution wants to use Mir I'm for applying patches upstream. But right now this isn't the case.
            Yes, I got that.
            Last edited by alexThunder; 07-21-2013, 08:11 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Honton View Post
              The first comment at Matthews blog is wrong. Qt and "Qt free" can be released of different schedules and the "Qt Free" release can be very small. Even if Digia failed to do the relase do you think KDE would do a BSD-licensed release of "Qt Free"? Here is two very god reason not to. A legal dispute would harm KDE, A legal dispute would harm "Qt Free", NOT Qt. (The agreement only covers Qt for the X windows system, not other platforms or possibly Qt for Linux embedded).
              You do know this comment has nothing to do with what i was saying, right???

              I never said jackshit about Qt free vs. Qt or concerns of a legal dispute harming KDE... Your comment has nothing to do with this thread, nor what i said... I said my observation, is that Canonical's CLA seems worse.

              if you were hoping that i wanted to get into some KDE / Qt legal argument, i'm not really interested. Clearly, you are passionate about the KDE / Qt situation ~ but i could care less.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                Not quite. I believe, (end-user) desktop Linux can only be successful with Canonicals help right now. At any time, someone with a big pocket may pick this up, but to wait for that seems overly optimistic to me.
                And right here I'm not interested in whether the community should or should not treat Canonical that way (since that's not my decision to make), but I'm interested in what's the way out (out of a MS/Apple world into a MS/Apple/Linux world and not into a MS/Apple/Canonical one).

                Whether or not this is a good way out, would you agree, that it is a way out (even if it's a bad one)?

                The difference is, I'm (trying) to see this more from a scientific view/attitude, than from a political one.
                You're not though, in your previous comment - you used fear mongering - which is not "scientific" in any sense.

                You are going to see the Ubuntu "platform" - deviate more and more from Gnu/Linux over time <or at least that seems to be the direction of things> - so no, i do not view an MS/Apple/Canonical world, any different from an MS/Apple one (other than an extra player in there). Ubuntu isn't an investment in Gnu/linux or "Desktop Linux" ~ it's an investment into Canonical... I don't believe that Canonical wants to see "Desktop Linux" succeed, they only want Ubuntu to succeed. (hence why in the past, Mark Shuttleworth, threatened other distro's to rebase of Ubuntu or "die"). ~ the boys/girls at Canonical showed their true colors along time ago.... So now, a MS/Apple/Canonical world is not what i am after and it's not "political" or anything like that. Canonical is shady at best. Their interests do not reflect the larger community and they shouldn't be trusted.

                As far as "a way out", as you call it - That will come when the stack is good enough, stable enough and robust enough for Gnu/Linux to be used by almost anybody. <which i don't think, as i said before, that it is there yet, but also not too far off>.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                  If Canonical patches Mesa downstream, you can't say that Mesa is including the majority per se (which, by coincidence is using Ubuntu). Again, I was not judging about whether or not this is bad at all (actually I still consider it sane, not to include distro specific code).
                  I think we agree here, but english isn't my native language so I'll try to explain some more:
                  • There are no downsides in keeping the patches downstream.
                  • There are downsides in accepting the patches upstream (more work for mesa devs, possibly new bugs that infect other distros, ...).
                  • mesa does not deliver a product for end users, it delivers a product for distributors (just like any other software). The ones delivering the software to the end users are the distributors. So if a distributor (Canonical) wants something special that no other distributor wants the way to go is to patch it on their side and spreading it into their distribution(s) (Ubuntu).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                    That's incorrect, trunk is only at 0.0.5. No code has been contributed to the 0.06/7 placeholders as they're just that, placeholders for bug tickets.
                    So now we know you're lying or not well researched, how can we trust what you say?

                    You also didn't put up any evidence that proves mrugiero and BO$$ are the same person, so I assume you're going to shut up about that instead?
                    i did not call mrugiero BO$$ i called alexThunder BO$$ and said it was his Twin let me use my fall back and see if it's 0.5 i do have a Neurological Disorder it's why i don't develop any more

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      You're not though, in your previous comment - you used fear mongering - which is not "scientific" in any sense.
                      How could I express my concern about this without being accused of fear mongering?

                      The difference is, that my concern is reasonable - you wouldn't deny that Canonical really has a big influence and that they really do some damage. Accusing me of fear mongering for seeing this as a concern seems highly unfair to me.

                      Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      You are going to see the Ubuntu "platform" - deviate more and more from Gnu/Linux over time <or at least that seems to be the direction of things> - so no, i do not view an MS/Apple/Canonical world, any different from an MS/Apple one (other than an extra player in there). Ubuntu isn't an investment in Gnu/linux or "Desktop Linux" ~ it's an investment into Canonical... I don't believe that Canonical wants to see "Desktop Linux" succeed, they only want Ubuntu to succeed. (hence why in the past, Mark Shuttleworth, threatened other distro's to rebase of Ubuntu or "die"). ~ the boys/girls at Canonical showed their true colors along time ago.... So now, a MS/Apple/Canonical world is not what i am after and it's not "political" or anything like that. Canonical is shady at best. Their interests do not reflect the larger community and they shouldn't be trusted.
                      So we agree on that a MS/Apple/Canonical world is not what we want. And I think the more Canonical is integrated in the community and depends on it, the less such a scenario is likely.

                      Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      As far as "a way out", as you call it - That will come when the stack is good enough, stable enough and robust enough for Gnu/Linux to be used by almost anybody. <which i don't think, as i said before, that it is there yet, but also not too far off>.
                      You're avoiding a concrete answer to my question. Although, personally, that's enough of an answer for me.

                      Originally posted by TAXI View Post
                      I think we agree here, but english isn't my native language so I'll try to explain some more:
                      • There are no downsides in keeping the patches downstream.
                      • There are downsides in accepting the patches upstream (more work for mesa devs, possibly new bugs that infect other distros, ...).
                      • mesa does not deliver a product for end users, it delivers a product for distributors (just like any other software). The ones delivering the software to the end users are the distributors. So if a distributor (Canonical) wants something special that no other distributor wants the way to go is to patch it on their side and spreading it into their distribution(s) (Ubuntu).
                      Yes. Just to make it clear: When I said, they're not serving people, but distros, that wasn't meant as criticism.
                      Last edited by alexThunder; 07-21-2013, 10:11 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X