Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA Presents Its Driver Plans To Support Mir/Wayland & KMS On Linux

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
    What's the use of the protocol if you have to implement it yourself? Or you can use the current protocol implementation, but then you're stuck with whatever comes from upstream and you're stuck with whatever they give you. And you still have to write your own compositor. Either way, you're breaking your own project for the sake of some abstract ideas of cooperation and interoperability. Mir gives them peace of mind knowing that if they fuck up something it's going to be their own fuck up. They might as well go on and write an exceptionally fast implementation of whatever they want and no one will give a damn. It's their own project and they're limited only by their knowledge base and money.

    Qt is not a political project unlike GTK. It is a project developed by paid developers, whose only interest is making money out of it. They have no interest in seeing Canonical succeed or fail, nor does their parent company has any interest in Linux unlike Novell or Redhat. They might not control the development of Qt, but neither does Novell or Redhat.
    I believe that if you look at the gtk project, most lines are written/committed by paid developers... for whatever that's worth.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
      Counter-reality-check: Most client HTTP libraries are total crap and don't even support HTTP 1.1 without major glitches. This is the status today and soon we'll have been even more versions (2.0) to deal with. And that's not even taking into account all proprietary HTTP implementations when for reason or another existing libraries were not considered acceptable.

      The root cause for this is that there is a protocol people needed to implement instead of there being one standard client library
      Seriously?
      If http support is sooo bad, how come we are using quite successfully to have this discussion? I want my major glitches
      Can you provide some alternatives for the web with standard client libraries, so we can compare what is working and what is not, instead of stating that http support could be better for some implementations?

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
        What's the use of the protocol if you have to implement it yourself?
        Advantages:
        • Better compatibility
        • Have a much better-designed system made by experts in the area with a huge amount of experience
        • Have more people looking for bugs
        • Don't need to waste time designing a new from protocol scratch
        • Don't need to waste time designing an entire new compositor from scratch (there is already a reference telling you how to do it, which could even be forked if needed)
        • Don't need to waste time maintaining your own toolkit patches
        • Don't need to waste time maintaining your own application patches
        • Don't need to waste time maintaining your own driver patches
        • Don't need to waste time maintaining your own fork of the X11 compatibility layer
        • Don't need to waste time maintaining your own fork or downstream patches for the android driver compatibility layer


        Of course you don't have to implement it yourself, you could fork it or maintain downstream patches (which would still be far less work than the forks and downstream patches they have to maintain with Mir). The same is true of the compositor. Either way though, it is far, far, far less work to use something pre-existing project.

        Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
        Either way, you're breaking your own project for the sake of some abstract ideas of cooperation and interoperability. Mir gives them peace of mind knowing that if they fuck up something it's going to be their own fuck up. They might as well go on and write an exceptionally fast implementation of whatever they want and no one will give a damn.
        By that logic they shouldn't be using the Linux kernel or Qt, they should be doing everything themselves from scratch. They don't do that, of course, because it is silly. It is just way too much work for no advantage. The same with Mir.

        Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
        It's their own project and they're limited only by their knowledge base and money.
        Both of which are limited. Canonical is haemorrhaging money, and last I heard nobody working on Mir had much, if any, experience with display servers.

        Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
        Qt is not a political project unlike GTK. It is a project developed by paid developers, whose only interest is making money out of it. They have no interest in seeing Canonical succeed or fail, nor does their parent company has any interest in Linux unlike Novell or Redhat. They might not control the development of Qt, but neither does Novell or Redhat.
        Then Canonical does not have a "tightly integrated commercial toolkit". They have a few toolkits that tolerate them and one major one that outright rejects them. But none are "tightly integrated".

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
          And I don't get your part. If those companies want wayland-like replacements/new-software then they should make one. Samsung electronics has more employees than Google, Apple and Microsoft combined. They are fully capable of developing their own software.
          But they aren't. All these huge, massively successful international companies are backing Wayland. Only Canonical has decided to reject Wayland and go their own way.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by CoderniX View Post
            Controversial again, in my previous post I mentioned that Mir is the Solution for Canonical, and I understand their own angle from where they see things, and it makes sense for their convergence strategy, alongside their unified SDK idea, which again no other Distro is trying to resolve, when the likes of MS and Apple did have that ages ago.
            Mir does not help them with convergence or with an SDK. Wayland can handle convergence as well (KDE is far further along with convergence than Canonical is). And they can build an SDK on top of Wayland just as they can do so on top of Mir (in fact KDE is working on an SDK that will support Wayland).

            Originally posted by CoderniX View Post
            which would have been happened even if Canonical had some Wayland platform exclusive specifications and they wanted them to be merged upstream, only to be slapped in the face by the likes of Intel and co,
            And maintaining those extensions downstream would still be far, far, far less work than maintaining an entire display server and a ton of patches for a wide variety of projects downstream.

            Originally posted by CoderniX View Post
            which is the same thing that stopped us from getting proper Optimus support on Linux, simply, because some FOSS fanatics --Alan Cox-- forbade NVIDIA from using the DMA-BUF to provide us a smooth resolution for what makes us more productive in our work,
            No, what happened was that Alan Cox rightly pointed out that the license forbade that. It isn't a matter of what someone does not does not want, it is a matter of what the license does not does not allow.

            Comment

            Working...
            X