Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: Mark Shuttleworth Goes Blogging On Ubuntu Defense

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    Nvidia adding a few bits for Mir shouldn't impact whether or not Wayland will run using an EGL-enabled (and compliant) nvidia blob.
    That's what I've said. Having Mir support doesn't necessarily translate in Wayland support or the other way around.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    So basically he says that Ubuntu should be focuses on the average user and the leet crowd can go fuck itself. Also things aren't going in the direction the consumer wants so they have to pull the reigns. Seems fair. The linux community always focused on the wrong things which is why it never had a chance on the desktop. Now hopefully things will change. I really hope Ubuntu gets it right. The more market share it gets the more traction it will get in terms of development and we will have fewer bugs. But it will be necessary for some people to pull their heads out of their asses and join in.
    I agree that his comments were at least somewhat reassuring that his head is in the right place. I'm not convinced this convergence story is going to work out so well, and I do question their technical ability to pull all this stuff off, and even I'm getting frustrated with some of the "features" they've been introducing into their latest releases... but he was right to say that the strategy needs to focus on providing a good end-user experience. That puts them at least an order of magnitude beyond where GNOME is.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    A certain sense of me feels that there's something wrong with this. Canonical is criticized for not contributing upstream. But when they do offer something upstream, it should be excluded if it doesn't fit the community's "vision" of what the preferred software should be.

    The politics involved is pretty ridiculous, and I can understand why a company wants to just play the lone ranger role.
    playing the 'lone-ranger' is exactly why i think they should do, as i said - maintain your sh*t out-of-tree then..

    Why should these upstream projects have the maintenance burden (for something that is Ubuntu-centric), when most of them are working towards a Wayland-centric, standardized stack across Gnu/linux? (which canonical is interfering with). ~ Upstream should just continue in the direction they are going (Wayland) and let Canonical deal with their own problems.

    Lots of companies maintain patchsets out of tree, when their goals aren't inline with upstream or incompatible to some degree. I don't see any reason for Canonical to be any different.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Just because you may not get what you want is no basis for divisive leadership
    When they outsource tech support to the community (forums), it's OK. When the community wants to have a say, it's not.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    A certain sense of me feels that there's something wrong with this. Canonical is criticized for not contributing upstream. But when they do offer something upstream, it should be excluded if it doesn't fit the community's "vision" of what the preferred software should be.
    Canonical is not contributing upstream. They're trying to get support for their project(which BTW undermines the efforts for a new standard display server).

    And other projects shouldn't take any patch in. It adds complexity and maintenance. Imagine having to support half a dozen display servers.
    Example: If a create a new type of executable incompatible with Linux. Should the Linux kernel just take my patch to support my executable?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talvik View Post
    That's what I've said. Having Mir support doesn't necessarily translate in Wayland support or the other way around.
    Read what i wrote, it's not the same thing, dude.

    If nVidia produces an EGL *certified* driver (ie: using the EGL specification) then Wayland should work just fine. It does not matter that Canonical may be using additional (EGL) extensions that Wayland is not. (since Wayland doesn't need those anyway).

    again, you didn't understand thomas' blog, you also don't seem to grasp what i am saying about EGL and specifications and are continuing to spread FUD.

    use your brain dude.
    Last edited by ninez; 03-07-2013 at 11:16 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    Read what i wrote, it's not the same thing, dude.

    If nVidia produces an EGL *certified* driver (ie: using the EGL specification) then Wayland should work just fine. It does not matter that Canonical may be using additional (EGL) extensions that Wayland is not. (since Wayland doesn't need those anyway).

    again, you didn't understand thomas' blog, you also don't seem to grasp what i am saying about EGL and specifications and are continuing to spread FUD.

    use your brain dude.
    Well I working with what you've wrote. You've said "EGL + extensions are what is needed to support Wayland", so doesn't nvidia have to support those "extensions" for it work?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    If nVidia produces an EGL *certified* driver (ie: using the EGL specification) then Wayland should work just fine. It does not matter that Canonical may be using additional (EGL) extensions that Wayland is not. (since Wayland doesn't need those anyway).
    So Wayland does not need extensions? that would reassure me a lot. Do you have some sources where the driver/EGL requirements are for Wayland? I googled quickly, but couldn't make it clear.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,049

    Default

    Yes, wouldn't it be nice if free software was the norm, not the exception?

    But how are we going to get there?
    If it is by selling our core values, then is it really worth it?

    I don't want Linux with adware, spyware, EULA, DRM, proprietary software, proprietary protocols, binary blobs, bundled software, browser toolbars, software that modify browser start page, backdoors, etc.

    Don't forget about transparency.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    I hope they convince nvidia, but on the flipside, hope canonical has to maintain all of their Mir support out of tree for the various toolkits. (no one even commented on the MESA mailing list about their Mir patchset, hopefully this is a sign that upstream doesn't appreciate what Canonical is doing with Mir). If that is the case, i hope GTK+ and Qt do the same.
    I can not see way qt should have anything against uppstreaming of the mir support. Multiplatform is a core idea for qt and as I understand it you can usually do it in a very clean way.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •