Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 230

Thread: Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomadewolf View Post
    Yes, let's get some perspective:
    Intel drivers were here way before Gallium... While, yes, it would be nice to have Intel working on Gallium, it's not their fault Gallium didn't exist when they started their drivers. Also, their drivers are designed to work on ALL distros.
    Wayland was created way before MIR, and Canonical implemented something that not only doesn't work in other distros, and only works in Ubuntu. The problem is so severe that Kubuntu might cease to exist...


    Some people here need to get a grip and some perspective.
    and this is why Kubuntu is going to use Wayland

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    and this is why Kubuntu is going to use Wayland
    As well as Xubuntu and Lubuntu in the future.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomadewolf View Post
    At least with Mint, their choices are ALWAYS made with the users in mind.
    So if the user base doesn't want MIR, it won't be shoved down their throats.
    Also, Mint has a 100% Debian based version, just in case...
    Considering how Mint's strong points are that it comes with a less free but more functional default and avoiding the most breaking changes from Ubuntu (they got a lot of users thanks to Ubuntu switching to Unity, for example), they are the least likely to switch to Mir, since they will want to get the users that don't like Mir.

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post
    weston doesn't have anything to do with buffer allocation. you can still do server-side buffer allocation on wayland (which i'm very comfortable saying as i've done it) with no changes to the compositor - it's all in the EGL stack for your graphics card, which have their own private buffer allocation protocols, e.g. wl_drm.
    Better yet, daniels, better yet. Tell it to the guy complaining that weston doen't allows you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgui View Post
    Lets not forget we should be storming down Intels doors for not using the Gallium framework to implement their graphics drivers!! How dare they not support an established effort to improve the linux graphics stack. For shame!!! How dare they not work towards the greater good of the Linux work and produce code that benefits only them more in the short term. I simply can't believe they deprived us of a world with a more robust Gallium code base!!!

    Some people here need to get a grip and some perspective.

    Even though it generates duplicated efforts, it doesn't spread, because the API aimed is still OpenGL. When you diverge on the APIs, this fragmentation branches everything out. For example, take GTK and Qt. For a complete desktop, you will need to write one for Qt, and one for GTK. Add other toolkit, then you need three desktops to be optimal. Intel's case do create a duplication of tasks that should be avoided, but for a start is not that they created their mesa driver after Gallium3D was there, they just didn't wanted to start from scratch, and *probably* (but not for sure) didn't want to share their code with the competition. The latter would be very bad of them, but it's only a speculation (even while I believe it's true at some degree). On the other hand, this duplication only means Gallium3D drivers have to reimplement some pieces of what Intel does on their mesa driver on the state trackers (everything out of state trackers is driver dependent, so it's unaffected by Intel's choice of sticking up to classic mesa). Real duplication, but zero spreading of this duplication. If you want to extend "the desktop experience", you will not even see Intel does things differently, but you will perceive the fragmentation caused by either the toolkits or the underlying display system, depending on what you want to use. Before the Mir/Wayland/X.org thing, the latter implied no fragmentation: nobody would be unable to run your app, and nobody would have to install a toolkit they don't use just to use your app. In the specific case of X, there are compatibility layers for legacy apps, and for the case of Wayland or Mir apps, at the moment there aren't any planned way for running their apps on other systems, so you would be completely unable to write toolkit independent code if you want it to run on other platforms.
    Since X is supposed to be eventually abandoned for the desktop, a future with X and Wayland would have mean this problem would be temporary, and that you could just write for Wayland without much trouble. The same would have been if Mir were there before Wayland, a Mir versus X would have mean only temporary problems and nothing that serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by synaptix View Post
    As well as Xubuntu and Lubuntu in the future.
    Xubuntu maybe, Lubuntu doesn't want compositing.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    293

    Default "Wayland is repeating the mistakes of X"

    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/arch...comment-402807

    Finally, yes, I think Wayland is repeating the mistakes of X, and I would like to have a fast, lean, clean option that does not.

    Mark
    Has anyone seen this comment from Mark? What is he talking about here - any responses from Wayland devs? Is there some facts so far in the Wayland development that support Mark's thesis or is this just a hunch/assessment from Mark?

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/arch...comment-402807



    Has anyone seen this comment from Mark? What is he talking about here - any responses from Wayland devs? Is there some facts so far in the Wayland development that support Mark's thesis or is this just a hunch/assessment from Mark?
    he is so full of Shit ppl don't care what he says we all know he is a liar them mistakes to him maybe not Supporting Ubuntu/Mir only

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/arch...comment-402807



    Has anyone seen this comment from Mark? What is he talking about here - any responses from Wayland devs? Is there some facts so far in the Wayland development that support Mark's thesis or is this just a hunch/assessment from Mark?
    Mark doesn't actually understand the underlying tech at all - he's a salesman, not a coder. He has no idea how display servers or any other part of the graphics stack work, he just says and does whatever he thinks will create good PR and publicity for Ubuntu/Canonical.

    It's not honest, it's marketing.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/arch...comment-402807



    Has anyone seen this comment from Mark? What is he talking about here - any responses from Wayland devs? Is there some facts so far in the Wayland development that support Mark's thesis or is this just a hunch/assessment from Mark?
    Completely, 1000000000000% false!!!
    The x11 developers are well aware of x11 faults. They even created x12, at least in the paper. But in order to make complete distinction between x11 and it's sucessor, they called it Wayland.

    Yes, the developers of x11, are essentially the same that develop Wayland!
    They are well aware of x11's faults, and Wayland's aproach is completely different and thought off in a way as to avoid the mistakes of x11.

    So, if Mark indeed made such a statement he is one of the following:
    • Misinformed
    • Dumb
    • Liar

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/arch...comment-402807



    Has anyone seen this comment from Mark? What is he talking about here - any responses from Wayland devs? Is there some facts so far in the Wayland development that support Mark's thesis or is this just a hunch/assessment from Mark?
    Probably X's mistakes are, for Mark, not making Ubuntu the only priority. Which isn't bad per se, he should care for the distro he backs up, but being dishonest about it is plainly wrong. If it makes Ubuntu its only priority, development will be probably faster, since that's the only thing they must make sure keeps running, but it screws up everyone else. Which is what Mir makes.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    well next time Dont go around calling ppl fuckin lier's when you dont know what the fuck you're talking about i do code some just not like a use to
    You're not helping me feel any sympathy for you, I'll also remind you that you're on a SFW board where profanity isn't allowed.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Even if Ubuntu becomes the Linux leader, why the hell would you choose Linux over the already installed and working Windows?
    That's the only part of your post that makes sense. Most people won't switch from a working and preinstalled solution, even if Linux actually would be in better shape, which is not on several points.
    As for all the bs you said, you should check how different is Mir from what Wayland proposes. For a start it uses quite a few Wayland's solutions.
    And XMir sure repeats X errors, and you praise it anyway.

Posting Permissions

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