Originally posted by Anarchy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NVIDIA Presents Its Driver Plans To Support Mir/Wayland & KMS On Linux
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by nanonyme View PostCounter-reality-check: Most client HTTP libraries are total crap and don't even support HTTP 1.1 without major glitches. This is the status today and soon we'll have been even more versions (2.0) to deal with. And that's not even taking into account all proprietary HTTP implementations when for reason or another existing libraries were not considered acceptable.
The root cause for this is that there is a protocol people needed to implement instead of there being one standard client library
If http support is sooo bad, how come we are using quite successfully to have this discussion? I want my major glitches
Can you provide some alternatives for the web with standard client libraries, so we can compare what is working and what is not, instead of stating that http support could be better for some implementations?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anarchy View PostWhat's the use of the protocol if you have to implement it yourself?- Better compatibility
- Have a much better-designed system made by experts in the area with a huge amount of experience
- Have more people looking for bugs
- Don't need to waste time designing a new from protocol scratch
- Don't need to waste time designing an entire new compositor from scratch (there is already a reference telling you how to do it, which could even be forked if needed)
- Don't need to waste time maintaining your own toolkit patches
- Don't need to waste time maintaining your own application patches
- Don't need to waste time maintaining your own driver patches
- Don't need to waste time maintaining your own fork of the X11 compatibility layer
- Don't need to waste time maintaining your own fork or downstream patches for the android driver compatibility layer
Of course you don't have to implement it yourself, you could fork it or maintain downstream patches (which would still be far less work than the forks and downstream patches they have to maintain with Mir). The same is true of the compositor. Either way though, it is far, far, far less work to use something pre-existing project.
Originally posted by Anarchy View PostEither way, you're breaking your own project for the sake of some abstract ideas of cooperation and interoperability. Mir gives them peace of mind knowing that if they fuck up something it's going to be their own fuck up. They might as well go on and write an exceptionally fast implementation of whatever they want and no one will give a damn.
Originally posted by Anarchy View PostIt's their own project and they're limited only by their knowledge base and money.
Originally posted by Anarchy View PostQt is not a political project unlike GTK. It is a project developed by paid developers, whose only interest is making money out of it. They have no interest in seeing Canonical succeed or fail, nor does their parent company has any interest in Linux unlike Novell or Redhat. They might not control the development of Qt, but neither does Novell or Redhat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anarchy View PostAnd I don't get your part. If those companies want wayland-like replacements/new-software then they should make one. Samsung electronics has more employees than Google, Apple and Microsoft combined. They are fully capable of developing their own software.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CoderniX View PostControversial again, in my previous post I mentioned that Mir is the Solution for Canonical, and I understand their own angle from where they see things, and it makes sense for their convergence strategy, alongside their unified SDK idea, which again no other Distro is trying to resolve, when the likes of MS and Apple did have that ages ago.
Originally posted by CoderniX View Postwhich would have been happened even if Canonical had some Wayland platform exclusive specifications and they wanted them to be merged upstream, only to be slapped in the face by the likes of Intel and co,
Originally posted by CoderniX View Postwhich is the same thing that stopped us from getting proper Optimus support on Linux, simply, because some FOSS fanatics --Alan Cox-- forbade NVIDIA from using the DMA-BUF to provide us a smooth resolution for what makes us more productive in our work,
Comment
Comment