Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    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...
    Not only Mark Shuttleworth couldn't attempt to make money off Debian, his patches would be likely to be rejected. Debian is about a community Free distro, Ubuntu isn't, for the sake of convenience. That's why he forked it.

    Comment


    • #22
      Oehm

      (although most of the blame and rejections don't come from Canonical).
      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

      Comment


      • #23
        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?

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by ninez View Post
          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...
          I'm sorry if I couldn't be more clear about what I'm thinking. I actually tried to say the opposite. Canonical started pretty much all of this, it's their fault, that we now have a Canonical vs. Linux Community - situation. Really, I didn't intend to twist that and I'm sorry if that's how my post was perceived. And what you said about the history is not different from what I know about it (again, sorry if I expressed myself somewhat blurry).

          So when Debian was forked and Ubuntu was created and growing in popularity, considering and treating them as a "hostile fork" - would that lead to an increase or a decrease of fragmentation? As I said, all this is actually Canonicals fault (or at least the most of it), but the Linux Community did pretty much everything possible, to make it even worse - they could do so very well and still maintain the moral lead, but did that help? Does it now? Will it ever?

          The direction things are going have 2 possible outputs from my point of view:

          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.

          I consider both of these possibilities as terrible, but that's where we're heading towards right now.

          Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
          So in this case, Canonical actually deserves the blame
          They (probably) deserve all of it.
          Last edited by alexThunder; 07-20-2013, 10:51 AM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Wait, what kind of a logic is it, waiting for a feature freeze before submitting such a patch set? I wouldn't be surprised if Mesa devs told Canonical to go away until Mesa 11.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
              Apple and Microsoft do more OpenSource Development then Canonical
              Are you talking about Hyper-V stuff again?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                The direction things are going have 2 possible outputs from my point of view:

                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.

                I consider both of these possibilities as terrible, but that's where we're heading towards right now, don't we?
                The best solution would be
                3) Canonical changes it's mind and supports Wayland, but that is probably unlikely.
                or maybe
                4) Canonical will fail, but Linux will still grow because of Steambox and stuff.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Maxjen View Post
                  The best solution would be
                  3) Canonical changes it's mind and supports Wayland, but that is probably unlikely.
                  or maybe
                  Yes

                  Originally posted by Maxjen View Post
                  4) Canonical will fail, but Linux will still grow because of Steambox and stuff.
                  Well, Canonical certainly is not the only one capable of pushing real Linux to endusers (as long you can still call it that way), but unfortunately the only one actually doing this.

                  If suddenly another company/community/whatever comes up, (succesfully) doing the same as Canonical, but in a Linux Community-friendly way, I'd be all in for that :|

                  Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                  Apple and Microsoft do more OpenSource Development then Canonical
                  Will their contributions help us, to get rid of them?
                  Last edited by alexThunder; 07-20-2013, 11:05 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                      I'm sorry if I couldn't be more clear about what I'm thinking. I actually tried to say the opposite. Canonical started pretty much all of this, it's their fault, that we now have a Canonical vs. Linux Community - situation. Really, I didn't intend to twist that and I'm sorry if that's how my post was perceived. And what you said about the history is not different from what I know about it (again, sorry if I expressed myself somewhat blurry).

                      So when Debian was forked and Ubuntu was created and growing in popularity, considering and treating them as a "hostile fork" - would that lead to an increase or a decrease of fragmentation? As I said, all this is actually Canonicals fault (or at least the most of it), but the Linux Community did pretty much everything possible, to make it even worse - they could do so very well and still maintain the moral lead, but did that help? Does it now? Will it ever?

                      The direction things are going have 2 possible outputs from my point of view:

                      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.

                      I consider both of these possibilities as terrible, but that's where we're heading towards right now.



                      They (probably) deserve all of it.
                      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

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X