Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63

Thread: Jolla Brings Wayland Atop Android GPU Drivers

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Getting unified Android/Linux/ChromeOS drivers would be ideal, whoever manages to bring us that. It should've been Google's project from day one of Android, but I guess it wasn't their priority, which is too bad because that has led to some of the biggest fragmentation issues of Android.
    Would you stupid people PLEASE quit spreading your "fragmentation" FUD? Fragmentation is a GOOD THING. Fragmentation is what ***MAKES ANDROID STRONG***. There is NO magic configuration that works perfectly for everybody. Fragmentation is the allowance for VARIATION, and VARIATION is necessary in order to be able to satisfy EVERYBODY.

    Also, you can't have "unified android drivers for everybody" because everybody has DIFFERENT HARDWARE. DIFFERENT HARDWARE = DIFFERENT DRIVERS. Again... FRAGMENTATION IS A GOOD THING. MAKES ANDROID STRONG.
    Last edited by droidhacker; 04-12-2013 at 08:15 AM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Here is the most important question:
    Wayland on top of "Android" drivers? Or on top of QUALCOMM ADRENO ANDROID drivers?

    If its the general case where it will work on *any* Android GPU drivers, then it means something. If it is the specific case where it works specifically and only on qualcomm adreno drivers, then it is meaningless horse shit. Not only because it is only good for that hardware, but also because ****FREEDRENO****.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    There might be some configurations of Tizen (or previously MeeGo) that allows/allowed L/GPLv3; GPLv3 code was removed from MeeGo TV and it was a no-go for IVI systems as well. Yocto has "non-GPLv3" option. One can only wonder why Apple wanted to avoid GPLv3 to the point of writing alternative for Samba (and GCC?). Projects like FreeBSD are also "fine" with L/GPLv2 but GPLv3 just goes too far. Tizen coreutils seems to be based on the pre-GPLv3 release of GNU coreutils too.
    I never understood that. The anti-tivoisation clause makes sense. Plus, GPLv3 improved the overall clarity of the license (and added other additions, like acknowledging that the internet exists, and thus saying that it's sufficient to put your code online and then put a link to it somewhere, instead of needing to give everyone a written offer for sending a disc with the source). So if people don't want to use it, then they clearly want to exploit the code and tivoise it. And thus such people are not to be trusted to begin with.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    More in the sense of... the take credit for others work. Not in a way "Oh we're distributing it" way but a "They coded it. We took it. Called it our own, claimed development of it because most people wont check the license file that marks us as liars."
    On the other hand, that was an Insult to Rocks. You'd liken Canonical to Apple, but that would even be unfair to Apple

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Here is the most important question:
    Wayland on top of "Android" drivers? Or on top of QUALCOMM ADRENO ANDROID drivers?

    If its the general case where it will work on *any* Android GPU drivers, then it means something. If it is the specific case where it works specifically and only on qualcomm adreno drivers, then it is meaningless horse shit. Not only because it is only good for that hardware, but also because ****FREEDRENO****.
    Did you read the blog post linked from the article? It's also talking about the PowerVR SGX drivers.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    More in the sense of... the take credit for others work. Not in a way "Oh we're distributing it" way but a "They coded it. We took it. Called it our own, claimed development of it because most people wont check the license file that marks us as liars."
    Apple does not do that as far as I can tell. During Macworld 2003 Apple publicly announced that Safari is based on KHTML: http://donmelton.com/2013/01/10/safa...-to-the-world/
    To this day the KHTML heritage is featured on the main page of https://www.webkit.org/ (Fun fact, btw: Google does not http://www.chromium.org/blink )

    As far as I can tell Apple also upstreamed bugfixes from BSD and GNU components of OSX. Apple does not insist on hosting forks on their own SCM service (Launchpad in Canonical's case).

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Canonical has done nothing to get rid of closed drivers.
    Should every linux company work at the kernel? There are plenty of things left to do in userspace.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dibal View Post
    Should every linux company work at the kernel? There are plenty of things left to do in userspace.
    Every company that sells services for a whole distribution should definitively also work on the kernel. If Canonical only did Unity and sold that for other distributions, you'd be right, but Canonical distributes Ubuntu as a whole.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Every company that sells services for a whole distribution should definitively also work on the kernel. If Canonical only did Unity and sold that for other distributions, you'd be right, but Canonical distributes Ubuntu as a whole.
    Could you please point to the section in the licence that says that? Or anywhere else that this has been established?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jayrulez View Post
    Could you please point to the section in the licence that says that? Or anywhere else that this has been established?
    Learn to read to what I even replied.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    As far as I can tell Apple also upstreamed bugfixes from BSD and GNU components of OSX. Apple does not insist on hosting forks on their own SCM service (Launchpad in Canonical's case).
    Are you trying to tell us one of the most evil companies is better than Canonical? Stop kidding.

Posting Permissions

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