Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 224

Thread: Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,651

    Default Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

    Phoronix: Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

    Canonical is back to trying to get upstream Mesa/Gallium3D to support their Mir Display Server. In their current form, the support comes across 15 patches for bringing up the Mir EGL platform...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQxNTc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    I hope the Mesa team rejects the patches.

    Canonical gave a big fuck you to the Linux community for going with their own inhouse display server which causes fragmentation.

    Mesa should give a big fuck you to Canonical by rejecting their Mir patches.


    Sorry Canonical, but Wayland is the future.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    19

    Default

    I think they'll accept the patches, i don't know why. Call it a sensation.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by synaptix View Post
    I hope the Mesa team rejects the patches.

    Canonical gave a big fuck you to the Linux community for going with their own inhouse display server which causes fragmentation.

    Mesa should give a big fuck you to Canonical by rejecting their Mir patches.


    Sorry Canonical, but Wayland is the future.
    Whatever happened to Linux being about choice? If a company wants to create their own display server, what's wrong with that? We should start putting restrictions on what display server you can use in Linux? That surely sounds pretty restrictive.

    Mir and Wayland are both the future.

    Should we start hating on Google now for not using Xorg or Wayland for Android and instead making their own?
    Last edited by Britoid; 07-20-2013 at 09:46 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Britoid View Post
    Whatever happened to Linux being about choice? If a company wants to create their own display server, what's wrong with that? We should start putting restrictions on what display server you can use in Linux? That surely sounds pretty restrictive.

    Mir and Wayland are both the future.

    Should we start hating on Google now for not using Xorg or Wayland for Android and instead making their own?
    Linux is about choice, nothing is stopping them from writing their display server. The only thing canonical is not getting is support from the community. What they are trying to do is get rid of the maintenance burden of their mesa patches.
    We are not hating android, however we do call Android 'Android' and not (GNU/)Linux which ubuntu still does markets itself as. There lies the major problem.

    Serafean

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    Linux is about choice, nothing is stopping them from writing their display server. The only thing canonical is not getting is support from the community. What they are trying to do is get rid of the maintenance burden of their mesa patches.
    We are not hating android, however we do call Android 'Android' and not (GNU/)Linux which ubuntu still does markets itself as. There lies the major problem.

    Serafean
    I would not be surprised if in a few years Ubuntu dropped all references to Linux, much like Apple and Darwin/FreeBSD.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    Linux is about choice, nothing is stopping them from writing their display server. The only thing canonical is not getting is support from the community. What they are trying to do is get rid of the maintenance burden of their mesa patches.
    We are not hating android, however we do call Android 'Android' and not (GNU/)Linux which ubuntu still does markets itself as. There lies the major problem.

    Serafean
    That is naive point of view.

    How many FLOSS projects do you participate in?

    Its NORM that any company who wish to build something ONTOP of given project, may at some point join in on development on supporting projects. That what Canonical is doing here. JOINING Mesa developemtn effort. In order to further their development of Mir.

    There is nowhere here any message about abandoning any patches.


    And before you replay more. Mesa code repo is OPEN.

    Go find any code Canonical added, and then orphaned (but still relied on it).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    66

    Default as long don't affect wayland or xorg...

    But the patch #15 should be rejected XD.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by przemoli View Post
    That is naive point of view.

    How many FLOSS projects do you participate in?

    Its NORM that any company who wish to build something ONTOP of given project, may at some point join in on development on supporting projects. That what Canonical is doing here. JOINING Mesa developemtn effort. In order to further their development of Mir.

    There is nowhere here any message about abandoning any patches.


    And before you replay more. Mesa code repo is OPEN.

    Go find any code Canonical added, and then orphaned (but still relied on it).
    most of the time company's have paid developers on site.. working on the project's or part of the project's Aka 90% of kernel developers how many developers is Canonical paying at Mesa to Develop?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Britoid View Post
    Whatever happened to Linux being about choice? If a company wants to create their own display server, what's wrong with that? We should start putting restrictions on what display server you can use in Linux? That surely sounds pretty restrictive.

    Mir and Wayland are both the future.

    Should we start hating on Google now for not using Xorg or Wayland for Android and instead making their own?
    If a company wants to create their own display server, they can. If a project doesn't want to accept that company's patches, they can.
    They can support themselves out of tree if they want.
    It doesn't make it any better. Nobody is banning them from doing whatever they are pleased to, but we are free to be upset about this choice.

    Google doesn't fragment the desktop, that's why most don't care a little bit about them, they are on phones and tablets and nobody targets Android for the desktop.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    While it's true, that Canonical started all this, the same could be said vice versa about the Linux Community ever since Ubuntu started. If we really get fragmentation it's the fault of both not being able to work with each other, but instead blaming and rejecting (although most of the blame and rejections don't come from Canonical).
    No, the same couldn't, because working with each other isn't the same as dropping all your previous work because of someone who had a whim. Working together is easier if everyone share their needs. Canonical forgot to do that and instead just assumed that what was lacking on Wayland back then would lack forever, without even asking for what they needed. If it were that they asked Wayland devs for the things they needed and they told them to go play elsewhere, then you'd be right. But not wanting to work with them now on the Mir thing is not being unable to work together, is not wanting to waste efforts doing again, from zero, all the work they already invested on Wayland support.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Android is developed behind closed doors too...
    Do you see anyone praising Google around here? We just don't name them constantly because Android doesn't affect us, desktop users. Can't affect where your market share is and will always be zero. What Ubuntu does, does affect desktop users, because is one of the most used on desktop and supposed to be for desktops too.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    Yes, that's what I meant, when I said that Canonical started all this. That's not only true for Mir. My point is, that we'd benefit from Canonical being tamed by the Linux Community instead of being ignored (or even fought). The latter is, what may actually lead to fragmentation. From a moral or ethical perspective, the Linux Community may be on the better site, but that alone won't help anyone, if it'll be Ubuntu where the party is at. But maybe Canonical will eventually fail and things will calm down again - but than, I'm afraid, Linux will develop backwards into a niche and we'll again need to rely on Apple or Microsoft, if we want to do anything more than compiling our own kernels.
    This has been discussed to death, but for anyone outside of Ubuntu benefiting from Mir, we need at least a compromise of a stable API. No other desktop aside of Unity would be able to follow this (possibly) constantly breaking API. And, being there seems to be no extra benefit on using Mir compared to using Wayland and that a lot of work was already put on supporting the latter, it makes no sense. It takes more work for no benefit, so what's the point? Also, part of Linux being about choice is that not everyone has to follow a single company's orders. And since they are making bad decisions, I'd have a hard time to follow them. For example, XMir on 13.10 and 14.04 is a decision that I think will directly harm users, so why should I go along with that?

    After getting rejected pretty much everytime they did something, this isn't a huge surprise.
    They could have been rejected a thousand times on other areas, and maybe wrongly, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to reject them on this particular area. Particularly, the whole Mir thing is the only one I actively opposed to. Then, there was Unity, which didn't fit me, but I don't think that hurts anyone. upstart is a good init system, IMO. Mir still has no real, explained, reason to exist, other than Canonical saying "hey, remember when we said we cared? well... we kinda lied, but hey, look, SHINY!".

    Quote Originally Posted by przemoli View Post
    That is naive point of view.

    How many FLOSS projects do you participate in?

    Its NORM that any company who wish to build something ONTOP of given project, may at some point join in on development on supporting projects. That what Canonical is doing here. JOINING Mesa developemtn effort. In order to further their development of Mir.

    There is nowhere here any message about abandoning any patches.


    And before you replay more. Mesa code repo is OPEN.

    Go find any code Canonical added, and then orphaned (but still relied on it).
    Yes, and most of them actually commit things that aren't just useful for them. The time being, the only things they are committing are to support themselves, and bring no benefit to anyone else. Considering this, it's not a big deal if they get rejected. Will anyone suffer? Nope, they can support themselves out of tree like they'll do in 13.10. If they accept them, there is a chance to be orphaned. Also, go find a project not created by them who gets more than one commit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    Apparently, you do not know what you are talking about (historically)... Ubuntu was considered a "hostile fork" by it's upstream Debian developers at the time of it's inception. Shuttleworth and friends decided rather than improving Debian to be more user-friendly, they would instead just fork it... So no, it can't be "said vice versa". ~ You also have to remember things like Shuttleworth threatening other distros to rebase on Ubuntu (over debian) or "die" (Mepis)... or the conscious choice to break their toolchain (from debian), etc...
    I don't agree here. About the threats, I have no idea, so I will not make any comment, but I ask you to explain more deeply so I can understand the situation.
    But about the fork? First, distros, except for their package managers (which is the same as in Debian, so doesn't change anything) doesn't add real fragmentation: you don't need to use another toolkit or anything like that, the same software can easily run on different distros. And considering Ubuntu was mostly about making Linux marketable, it kind of makes sense a clean start. I'm much more concerned by their coding than by their forking distros. I don't quite know how did audio get fragmented aside from OSS and ALSA, so I have no idea if Canonical is to blame there. On the init systems situation, they made upstart first, so I think it would make more sense to blame whoever did systemd (Red Hat?). Even though, the init systems doesn't affect much.

    Alex, you obviously do not know your history and do not have a clue about this stuff, to be making such silly comments ~ anyone who was around at the time of Ubuntu's inception knows what you are saying is utter BS. you are trying to twist history to make it seem as though the community caused all of these issues, when in reality ~ you could not be further from the truth...
    With this, I agree. Blaming the ones who made a solution first for the fragmentation is kind of nonsense. Is not like it was just sitting there doing nothing. Most of the ecosystem already had a lot of work invested in working over Wayland by the time of Mir's announcement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    MIR's licensing (you have to assign Canonical your copyright) basically makes it impossible for any other distribution to use MIR without giving up control over a very important part of a desktop linux system.
    Licensing is one of the main concerns regarding MIR. So in this case, Canonical actually deserves the blame
    Nah. For a start, you can not "assign your copyright", because in some countries that's just illegal. You give them the right to sublicense, which basically is what everyone can do with Wayland's license. In any case, the problem is that it doesn't give everyone the same rights. But as of control of upstream (on the license level, they will still have the last word on accepting and rejecting patches on the main repo, being their repo) it isn't any worse than Wayland. Of course, a lot of people, including myself, wouldn't commit their work to a project that gives a very specific group of the project more rights than everyone else, independently if the general case is free software; I believe all developers should have the same rights over the code. All can sublicense (e.g., MIT license) or nobody can (e.g., GPL without CLA).
    What I wonder is how this situation works regarding forks. Is the CLA still valid for forks? Or it's just on upstream?

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    1) Canonical will be successful, but be fragmented away from the rest of the Linux world.

    2) Canonical will fail and Linux (for endusers) will continue to be niche, thus endusers will still be forced to rely on MS or Apple.
    3) Mir alone will fail thanks to their too early, PR lead, introduction as XMir, and Canonical will try and fix the harm done going Wayland.

    I sincerely hope Canonical at least open their eyes and see XMir is a bad idea.

    Anyway, I explained previously why the path you suggest leads to less fragmentation is flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Filiprino View Post
    I don't see Ubuntu as an hostile fork. That's stupidity from the community.

    If people already in charge of a distro does not share your vision of how a usable and easier for the user a distro should be, then you can only do a fork.

    Speaking of Wayland vs. Mir, I do not like very much what they're doing. They could have made a fork of Wayland like they did with Ubuntu and Debian (which to a large degree their packages are identical and all the source code from Canonical is available) and add or modify whatever they wanted and just try to keep the patches up to date if it's possible, in case Wayland's source code changed continuously and broke every time and recompile, well, it would be of course much more cumbersome.
    On the first two comments, I completely agree. Also, I don't think distros does any harm.

    About the last one, for a start, forking should be always the last resort. Before even forking, they should check they don't agree, not just assume that like they did. IF they didn't share their views, then they might have chose to fork, and try to keep API compatibility, so no fragmentation is added. But even so, all they do with Mir seems to be doable as a Wayland compositor. Server structure: check, you can make your compositor a display server, even though Wayland doesn't impose this architecture. Server side allocations: the same, you can make your compositor do all the allocations. This would probably break compatibility with apps that use a client side allocation model, but it would probably be not too hard to fix, contrary to a whole different API as it is right now. All of the other features I read about are actually copied from Wayland (i.e., using libhybris, etc.). MAYBE utouch isn't copied, but since Mark said at some point their utouch could have been useful for Wayland, I can only assume by their own words it could be easily used within a Wayland compositor.

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    Nope the Linux Community helpped Ubuntu and mark used his cash to pay off developers to get them using Ubuntu and his cash for PR and more cash to say hey come Develop Ubuntu see all the green now we have this out of tree thing called Ubuntu and some new Vaperware called Mir

    do you work for Canonical Ubuntu is one of the most lame Linux's for the endusers? you want Tumbleweed or Arch Linux for End Users
    Nobody denies that. But out of enterprise users, Ubuntu wins on popularity. That's what defines it to be niche or not niche, the popularity. The things you named just defines the software quality. And since for having commercial apps, market share (i.e. popularity) is more important than quality, the desktop would probably suffer on that area, specifically in games support. On the other camps, we will probably see no difference if Canonical just pops. I'd name hardware support and professional applications, but enterprise users do count for that, so no change there either.

    Quote Originally Posted by przemoli View Post
    Did you checked ubuntu 13.10 on radeon/nouveau/intel drivers recently?
    I did. Even when the gross corruption the pic he constantly puts is not anymore, there are some problems that make the experience quite shitty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Temar View Post
    I hope the Mesa team is more mature than you are. You sound like an angry little kid.
    Even though I have no special hope on either side (and kind of want Mir to get good support or to fail miserably, but nothing in between, since in between still means fragmentation, at least we should have a good product causing it), most Canonical defenders sound really childish (well, maybe only BO$$, but he's so persistent he's the one who comes to mind), and stating a hope doesn't sound childish to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    #2 - I do not believe in this scenario. Canonical != Desktop Linux and people need to stop pretending that it is, as "the one and only" taker - it's not. I think you will find that as time progresses, that upstream(s) will continue to improve the stack and there will come to boiling point where most ease of use / user-friendly distros are very competitive with each other (and Ubuntu) and provide a nice OOTB experience for end-users. - the big "end-user" advantages of Ubuntu (as some see them) have slowly been disappearing, as upstream stacks get better.
    I don't think either the support or the ease of use is Linux real problem now, but PR. And that's what Canonical is good for, PR.
    You can have 30 perfectly supported, easy as hell to use distros, that if newbies don't know which of them "is Linux" will have at most 4% market share between all of them. We already have an easy to use system in almost all of the general use distros. I heard GREAT things about Fedora. But I heard nothing about it outside of people who already uses Linux, even when it's easy to use. Right now, a lot of distros are even easier to use than Windows in several areas. But again, Ubuntu is THE popular one, the one people who doesn't yet use Linux know about. There could arise other, anyway, but I wanted to point out that PR is our current problem, and that it affects commercial support, and mostly nothing else. Anyway, I use mostly free software on Linux (and most of my time in general), so it doesn't really change my life to get commercial apps support here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrecorreia View Post
    you are stupid guy, how many people get patches to mesa better, even microsoft. we never know if is important or not for others, itś open source i can t see the problem.

    ppl like you f**** linux universe.

    liberty of choice and we use what we want
    Let's think. First, I don't know about any MS code on mesa. I know of it on the kernel, for Hyper-V support.

    On "people using it", let's consider a few things:

    - Officially, Mir is only for Ubuntu, at least right now. This means you either use Ubuntu, or you have to build it yourself.
    - If you build the software, you probably know, and is not too hard for you to do so, how to patch mesa locally, and it's likely that the out of tree patches will be in the same place the sources are.

    So, the only case where it matters if it gets merged is for distros using it, since the idea is the distro user doesn't need to build Mir. Which currently are only Ubuntu. So, Ubuntu will patch locally as they are doing. Does it change anyone's life? No. Does accepting the patches create a possibility for Canonical to orphan them and mesa having to support it? Yes. I don't think it's likely, but if they choose to reject it because of that, I'd accept that reason, because that possibility is real. Anyway, as long as they don't break things for everyone else, I'm not against mesa accepting the patches, and I know mesa wouldn't accept them otherwise. But they have no obligation to do so, either moral or legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    yeah see here



    thats Mir on non Intel Opensource Drivers
    That was Mir on non Intel OSS Drivers at least three weeks ago. It (kind of, in a crappy way) works with my Radeon card.

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    Wow there is way too much hate going on here. I literally laughed when I read someone suggesting Arch for regular users who just want their computer to work (I do love Arch, btw.!).
    I didn't laugh, but it sounded really weird. I can imagine my friends having to deal with manually defining what they want their OS to have, when they hardly know what a driver is.

    Quote Originally Posted by przemoli View Post
    Ubu 13.10 up to date? (Fresh instal preferably)
    Ubu 13.10, up to date, fresh install, does not include Mir. You still need to use a PPA. I guess it will be there by default before the betas.

Posting Permissions

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