Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

    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

  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by Thaodan View Post
    Android does most of the stuff on their on, Canocial relias mostly on the community or other companys for example: libhybris: Jolla.
    Worth to point out: Android was never a part of the community. It was always *just* a product. Canonical had a speech about free software and the community and bla bla bla. That's what makes hypocrites hypocrites, faking your intentions. Android doesn't mean "from humans to humans" or anything like that.
    Finally, Android has near zero relevance on defining what the future of desktop Linux, or Linux in general, will be. It only powers some kinds of devices, which none of them are desktops, using the kernel and maybe a few other low level tools; everything else, is Android specific. I'd totally prefer Ubuntu to Android on phones, if you want to know. I'd totally prefer someone who actually works with the community or at least cares enough to not make a mess of it, though.
    Last edited by mrugiero; 08-05-2013, 01:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thaodan
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    Android is developed behind closed doors too...
    Android does most of the stuff on their on, Canocial relias mostly on the community or other companys for example: libhybris: Jolla.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    Just to say that it's the other way around. A synchronous protocol requires responses or acknowledgment to come back before sending new requests, while an asynchronous one doesn't. As such, asynchronous protocols are the ones that lag less, because if you send an intensive request and then a less intensive one, you can still receive the second answer rapidly.

    That being said, Wayland is actually asynchronous while X11 isn't much, so this is indeed an improvement brought by Wayland's design.
    Actually, X11 is asynchronous. Xlib is synchronous, but XCB exposes it as an asynchronous protocol.
    What keeps being synchronous (because only Khronos Group can change the standard) is GLX, since it's based on Xlib.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by nomadewolf View Post
    xorg mistakes are (summarized):
    -asynconous design ('lag' effect on internet pages for instance)

    Wayland is:
    -syncronous designs
    Just to say that it's the other way around. A synchronous protocol requires responses or acknowledgment to come back before sending new requests, while an asynchronous one doesn't. As such, asynchronous protocols are the ones that lag less, because if you send an intensive request and then a less intensive one, you can still receive the second answer rapidly.

    That being said, Wayland is actually asynchronous while X11 isn't much, so this is indeed an improvement brought by Wayland's design.

    Leave a comment:


  • daniels
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Are you the same daniels of wine fame?
    no, sorry. just wayland and xorg (and, a long time ago, ubuntu/debian/kde).

    Leave a comment:


  • timothyja
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    Still no reply to the proposed patches...
    How to interprete this?
    Well they did also post them at a time when the other devs are busy trying to wrap up their changes for the next Mesa release.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    Still no reply to the proposed patches...
    How to interprete this?
    Pissed off developers with no wish to help make the situation better, I believe. I don't blame them for being pissed off, but it's common courtesy to at least state they won't be accepted.

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    Still no reply to the proposed patches...
    How to interprete this?

    Leave a comment:


  • V10lator
    replied
    Originally posted by BO$$
    I'm sick of these nobody's projects that go nowhere.
    So companies like Red Hat, Intel, IBM, ... (all involved in Wayland development) are nobodys compared to Canonical?
    The only reason it works with any distro/DE is because those distros and DEs are maintained by assholes who try to sabotage Canonical.
    And cause of that these distros/DEs existed before Mir, Unity and even Ubuntu...
    I also trust they know a bit more about OSes
    How do you come to that conclusion? What OS beside Ubuntu did we see from Canonical?
    and have a very good reason why they created Mir
    Till now all reasons they gave have been proven to be invalid. So where are these "very good reasons" ?
    I don't know
    Then do your self a flavor and shut up. You still didn't take your pills, did you?

    //EDIT: BTW, from your link:
    "the API for the Mir Client library will always be backwards compatible"
    Remember: They didn't plan the API as good as Wayland did but rushed it instead... And the the same guy told he thinks Wayland is re-creating the issues of X... *facepalm*
    Last edited by V10lator; 07-25-2013, 04:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X