Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

[Andrecorreia]

stupid

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.

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

[LinuxGamer]

A little bit to drink? Dude it's 11:30am on the East Coast.

damn east cost time



was all of them patch's rejected that fast?

[LinuxGamer]

Do you have any proof for such accusations?

Did you checked ubuntu 13.10 on radeon/nouveau/intel drivers recently?

Did you read any Mir related articles on Phoronix recently?

yeah see here



thats Mir on non Intel Opensource Drivers

[entropy]

As an active radeon developer my first question is why the heck they want to change our kernel driver?

The command submission and buffer sharing interfaces are quite well defined and work perfectly for both X and Wayland.

Well we will probably see,
Christian.

I agree, that sounds strange.
Are those patches already available somewhere?

I hope they will get a careful and thorough review and are not half-blindly accepted.

[LinuxGamer]

As an active radeon developer my first question is why the heck they want to change our kernel driver?

The command submission and buffer sharing interfaces are quite well defined and work perfectly for both X and Wayland.

Well we will probably see,
Christian.

and this is what i don't get as well the code is layed out for them to use but they don't want to use it they want to do thing's there own way
why is there a need to support 3 DS's?

[d2kx]

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.!).

Hopefully those patches get accepted for the next Mesa release.

[alexThunder]

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a hostile fork.

I didn't fight that. However I don't think, that "hostile" is an adequate classification for forks in general, but whatever - let's just leave it that way.

Edit: Whoops, just noticed that you weren't referring to me, but I'll still leave my thoughts on that.

Considering them a "hostile fork" has nothing to do with an increase/decrease in fragmentation. - it only shows that Ubuntu is/was hostile to the developers/distro they cannot exist without... ~ What would lead to fragmentation is breaking toolchains, etc... And i wholeheartedly disagree that the linux community made things worse (other than maybe for Canonical/Ubuntu, by not accepting patches upstream, etc... which is well within their rights to do so - especially when Canonical tends to produce rubbish code anyway.).

Technically you're right. However, humans are not machines and they make decisions based on attitudes. Considering Ubuntu/Canonical "hostile" is an attitude, that will lead to decisions, which will further fragment Linux.

And you're also right, that it is within the rights of the community not to accept patches - as I said, morally the community has the lead. But if no one accepts Canonicals patches, will that decrease or increase fragmentation? Canonical started it by actually patching things (you have to admit, that in order to do, what they have in mind (e.g. Unity), this is barely avoidable), but the community could have minimized damage by integrating these patches/ improving them together with Canonical. I know, this seems to be asked for far too much, but in the end, that would have been more useful, wouldn't it?

#1 seems to be Canonical's plan, so if you are an Ubuntu-user, #1 is already what you are supporting to some degree <knowingly or not>.

I know this. I still favor this over using software from MS or Apple. Sure, I could use other distros (which I do from time to time), but in the long term, that doesn't seem to work out.

Furthermore, I don't think that isolating themselves is an actual goal of Canonical. They just don't seem to bother that much.

#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 really do not think Desktop Linux' success requires Canonical ~ what it does require is an underlying OS that is robust, has tier 1 H/W support, rock solid performance / stability, etc -> which, let's be real here; How much code is Canonical going to write / contribute to make that a reality???

Canonical's big contribution to that is barely of a technical nature, it's marketing. How many vendors are actually selling machines with various distros pre-installed (that means, not only Ubuntu)? There is ZaReason - and well, that's all I heard of. System76 is (afaik) only selling Ubuntu. And both of them are pretty small. On the other hand, e.g. HP, Dell or Asus (at least with Note/Netbooks) are selling some machines with Ubuntu pre-installed - only Ubuntu (in terms of Linux support).

As I said, Canonical is not the only one capable of pushing Linux to the masses, but right now they're the only one doing so. Just having great tech lying around somewhere is not enough, you also need to get it ~sold~. If it was only about having good code, why would MS dominate the desktop?

Or let's just put it this way. If Canonical fails, who would then bring Linux to the masses? I'm not asking for someone who could do this, but who actually would. Valve seems to have some interest in this, however I wouldn't bet on them taking over the desktop os business for Linux.

[leif81]

If the mesa patches are helpful to the general mesa community they will likely be accepted. But if they are mir specific then likely not. That's the point of upstream and downstream.

[przemoli]

yeah see here



thats Mir on non Intel Opensource Drivers

Ubu 13.10 up to date? (Fresh instal preferably)

[przemoli]

If the mesa patches are helpful to the general mesa community they will likely be accepted. But if they are mir specific then likely not. That's the point of upstream and downstream.

Same goes for Wayland right now...
But Wayland-specific code was included.