Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

[ninez]

If it's only Canonical, I wouldn't mind too much. But if they get too influential AND isolated, ...

This.... That's the problem. They are influential, i don't think anyone would deny that - but even with all of their hype / buzzwords / clever marketing / influence / etc ~ they haven't managed to work well with all of these projects, aren't good at PR and are losing/lost respect from these projects/developers that Ubuntu is built on and *needs*... ~ it's a bit of a problematic situation.

I guess I missed your point. What's it then?

In the situation of CLA - they (Canonical) are the sole copyright holder <because part of being a contributor in CLAland is giving them assignment>... there isn't an "intermediary" like with KDE / Qt clause/license. Under Canonical's conditions, i can't imagine wanting to contribute (unless, i was an employee).

Didn't we worry about fragmentation? What if Ubuntu gets big and people are targeting only Mir?

Worrying is a waste of time. It's already happened, no one seems to be interested in Mir outside of Ubuntu (nor have i seen anyone writing Mir backends for XYZ app). That's why i say they should just maintain the Mir support themselves, rather than adding the burden to developers who are working towards something else.

I'm not sure how much influence these shops generate, but Dell is still only doing this with Ubuntu (having shops with pre-installed Ubuntu).

Sure, but this isn't anything new and it isn't always convenient / widely available - from what i understand, they (dell) also no longer offer Desktop PC models with Ubuntu, either < and as i said before, i can call dell and have them ship a PC (that is linux certified), pre-installed with any of their supported Distros... >

I got that from a professor of Volkswirtschaftslehre (german, sorry I don't know the english equivalent - it's something about broader economics).

Maybe it was just language / miscommunication, but as i said, not everything that happens in the boardroom is marketing. likewise, marketing isn't the only avenue that led to microsoft dominating the market.

There will certainly every be issues - as they are everywhere.

that's so vague, it's meaningless....

I wasn't talking of PC stores supporting Linux, but offering support in general. If average people get problems with their machines, they're (mostly) helpless - not matter if on Windows, Mac OS or some Linux distro. They already need external help - it's not a Linux-specific problem.

MS is everywhere - no problem getting help. Apple, you take you computer to them (or specialist to you, if needs be. yes, they do that!). Linux you go to a forum, or find someone who can fix the problem (less common than Mac or Windows users, no support from PC shop). and although each platform (of course) comes with their own issues, generally, the problems new-users hit using linux, can be much harder to address...

I wasn't sure about Linux being ready for the majority, but certainly for a whole bunch of (easy) people. And when they need a Windows-VM, I do not recommend Linux and I said this in my post before. If they need such a VM, Linux is not ready for them.

it sure sounded like you were talking about the majority before, but regardless, you haven't really swayed me here / you've said nothing compelling, in the slightest.

Why is this silly? I know, that they offered to do this, because the KDE devs won't. My point here is, that if Canonical were after isolating themselves, they wouldn't want other DEs on Ubuntu, would they? And surely they wouldn't offer to port such DEs themselves.

They are concerned about *losing their userbase*. that is why they would do it - they thought KDE would do it <for them, they were wrong...gee, i wonder why..? lol>...

1. Getting no responses on mailing lists, a lot of negative attention from developers, etc shows that they are already isolating themselves in one sense (whether intentional or not). 2. Focusing on their own solutions rather than working on common infrastructure (Intentionally, isolating themselves) and even worse 3. crapping on other people's work (like Wayland), as they try to pull the rug from under the rest of the community...definitely a good way to piss of developers and alienate yourself.

I'm aware, that Ubuntu's part in that is small - without the aid of other giants they'd be nowhere. Still, they made Linux (easily) accessible to easy users, didn't they? Afaik they didn't do that much more ... well, Upstart maybe, but that's not a game changer. And Unity (I know, I know, I'm sorry for that one :P)

They made *Debian Linux* easily accessible to users. You seem to over estimate the amount of work NOT done by Canonical/Ubuntu to make this happen... They aren't doing any of the critical work involved. - furthermore, in the future, they will have very little to do with this kind of development.

May I ask, what you actually mean with "Ubuntu = Linux"? What do you actually think what Ubuntu users think about the relation between Linux and Ubuntu? Btw., I'm also using Arch and to me Ubuntu is (still) a distro made easy - not that much more.

(some) Ubuntu users think that Ubuntu *equals* linux, which it does not, it's just one flavor... and what i meant by that is that Gnu/Linux isn't dependent on Ubuntu's success, contrary to many ubuntu kids claims. Ubuntu can't succeed (and has failed in the past) because Gnu/Linux hasn't been and (to some degree) isn't ready for the masses, even now. Maybe in a couple of years, once X is replaced and some other bits are smoothed out in the stack... either way, it won't have much to do with Canonical.

No, the success isn't huge right now and I didn't say that, but still that development (this is for you, phoen1x) looks good right now. I also know, that you need the other people as well - still, gaining some ground among gamers is better than nothing. It's ok if they don't sky-rocket at every place at the same time

Sure, it's nice to see more developers / titles come to the platform. but as i said, there are other industries, that are very important in order for Desktop Linux to gain any widespread use.

[ninez]

Asus support not only Ubuntu, but also Fedora (including its enterprise variant RHEL) and OpenSuse.
https://www.asus.com/fr/websites/glo...s/OS/Linux.pdf

ah, thanks...

good to know, but i kinda figured as much (or similar).

[mrugiero]

mrugiero, you should have sticked to the latest state of the discussion, instead of commenting on points, which already have been developed further.

Still there's one point I'd like to adress:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-June/037342.html

LinuxGamer:

The big companies, who sell machines runnung linux - which distro do they ship? Does Dell advertise RHEL, HP Arch or Asus Debian for their enduser machines? No? What would you guess, why they're not?

Well, let's see. First point, they keep contradicting themselves, so I wouldn't take that as a compromise. Seriously, one of the most detailed articles from a developer states that they will not try at all to keep compatible, and that they actually might intentionally break the API if anyone tries to do a reimplementation of Mir. So, their plan is probably not a compromise.

For the second point, the answer is quite simple, actually. For Dell to advertise RHEL, they need to pay a license. For Dell to advertise Ubuntu, they need to install it and that's it. For the case, in my country there are several manufacturers distributing custom distros, and none (at least, no major one) distributing Ubuntu. As for Arch and Debian, the first one would make no sense, since it's designed to be a custom distro, and the second because it ships really old packages on the stable version.

ChromeOS is a Linux desktop. And they're probably selling more Chromebooks than all other Linux desktop / laptop sales combined.

The only thing ChromeOS has of "Linux desktop" is the hardware it runs on. It's completely thought with the same mindset as a tablet: a screen where you surf the web, and nothing else. And I seriously doubt it will gain any relevance aside from being preinstalled on chromebooks.

Quite the contrary... Android is heralded as this great example of how successful and dominant Linux is in the consumer space. The point is... if you want success in the consumer market, you have to do things a bit differently than what the "Linux community" wants. So all this piling on Canonical is just hypocrisy.

I don't see Android as an example of Linux success, frankly, I'm quite surprised Google didn't use a BSD as a base to make a closed source product. It's great software for what it does, but it has the same of Linux desktop as a Linux kernel running pong. And no, you don't need to break compatibility, you just need to keep in mind most people doesn't like manual configurations and that you need good PR. Canonical did right until Mir, and screwed up with that move, IMO.
Also, despite the possible hypocrisy of this forum's users, Android is irrelevant to the Linux desktop. You can like it or dislike it, but it doesn't change a bit the situation for the Linux desktop, not a bit more than a server distro changes it. For all I care, Android doesn't exist (not that I dislike it as an OS for tablets and cellphones, but currently I use a notebook and a Nokia 1100, and I'm not planning on changing it).

I do the same everytime I order a new machine. However, people like us are not the majority, who make a difference on market share and impact.

Yeah, sure. The majority is building their own machines and setting them up. Maybe the majority of Linux users, but not the majority of average pc users.

This post talks big truths the average distro doesn't understand.

no it was like a under a week ago or around on a HD6950 and Nvdia 660ti how old is your card? on the Opensource Drivers using Ubuntu's patch set

Well, then it must be card specific (it probably affects several other cards, though), since in my HD 3200 it works. As I said, kind of. It has ugly glitches, but it doesn't show total screen corruption like the screenshot. Does that card use RadeonSI driver? Mine run R600g. Also, I just saw the G+ post, and July 7th wasn't last week...
I don't want to sound like BO$$, but you should really get out of the basement (?)
(Now, seriously, I think it passed a lot less time than it really passed at times, too, but I needed to make that joke)

Not exactly. They shouldn't lower their standards but instead help Canonical improving their patches to a suitable quality instead of fighting them. I know, this is asked for too much, but at the end, the overall benefit would outweight the question of who's actually right.

I'm not sure what you mean by fighting them. Fighting them would be rejecting a patch because it's Canonical's. Rejecting it for being distro specific, if they do reject other distro specific patches, is just being fair with all distros. Rejecting it because it's poor quality is just caring about their users. If they ask what's wrong with a patchset, chances are they'll be telling them what's wrong. Hell, even I might try to pull a crappy patch, and some developers might even tell me why it's rejected, even when in my case it would be obvious that I'm not even familiar with the project.

Yes, and they're in competition with who? They're not seriously competing with other Linux distros, as they're still a minority/niche. They're aiming for the masses, i.e. Google, MS, Apple. I really don't see Canonical's business modell threatend by other Linux distros

Actually, since the big ones are either closed source (or close-able dependent) or Google (which is far better at developing than Canonical), the only ones who have something to lose from Canonical choices are this smaller distros.

I know of Microsoft's dirty tricks, but, well, that's marketing. I wonder how you'd want to beat that without someone doing the marketing for Linux. Technically, the Linux Desktop is in a good shape - it could be better, granted, but for a lots of users (maybe even for the majority?), the desktop is sufficient as it is right now (which practically is: browsing, mails and some office stuff). Still, if no one is ~selling~ that, how should it spread among the masses? They won't adapt to that themselves out of nowhere. You may wait forever to see that happening.

Well, if that's "marketing" (vendor locking, too), then I hope you won't ever use the argument "but isn't Linux about choice?????". Because that would be utterly moronic after this. I don't remember if you did, but I will pay attention if you do, just to point it out. I agree on the last points, though.

A lot of people? What do you mean by that? another 0.5%? It won't be much more. Note, that most people don't even know what Linux is. Just because there's a super duper distro somewhere on the net won't make them ditch the OS they already have and know for something they're completely new to. Especially not, if they're not even capable of setting anything up, which goes beyond downloading something from an App Store.

You really assume too much of the average users. The majority won't do anything on their own instead of using what other people already have set up for them.

True. I don't remember who you were answering to, but I can bet a kidney it was LinuxGamer.
I also agree with the rest of the post.

Then people should work with them and change it so patch#15 doesn't negatively affect x and wayland. Rejecting to collobarate and saying hey "this is how you could fix it", or two entirely different things.

Well, usually rejections come with a "because". I don't believe they'll just reject it because "Canonical is evil". But guiding is a thing, and doing someone else's work is another. Else, I could just send a garbage patch that *says* it adds support for my old Unichrome Pro so they'll have to make it work. They'll probably point me out what is wrong, or if it's actually total garbage will point me to the basics docs.

Wayland is Fixing most of are problems in the Desktop space thats what we needed for so long to go Full Mainline
i was calling alexThunder BO$$ them 2 are twin's
on top of that all the Development for Wayland is mosty the same on Desktop's or Phone's
it has good Multiseat support etc the perfect frames is a seller too
Wayland and systemd get along fixxing even more Desktop space problems
but now we have that thing called Mir adding in even more tool kits and problems
Really our Main Problems are Jerk's like Canonical They're whats going to End up Holding Linux back a few Years do to dis Mir Thing and they're the few who have the cash to do the PR on a main Line Linux Desktop but Building there own DS over using wayland is beyond me it's going to really showing down Project's Developers Hate Multi Platform and now Developers are going to look at Linux and Say Pass
adding a new Multi Platform is what they're going and it's only going to end up bad for all of us

While it's true Wayland fixes most of the technical problems, it does nothing on the PR side. *Normal* people doesn't really know about tech, and they are mostly guided by other things, like public opinion, "experts'" opinion, friends, campaigns. Even while Mir doesn't fill any niche that wasn't correctly filled, Canonical does, since that's the only company promoting a Linux desktop for common users. Red Hat, while far bigger than Canonical, aims to enterprise, so you won't probably see ads on TV or things like that; instead, you'll know of Red Hat because you have real experts and IT guys working on it, and if you work on a serious company that doesn't use Windows, you'll probably hear of Red Hat. Is it as easy to use as Ubuntu? Probably yes, I didn't use it, but I see they put a lot of effort on most of the desktop related things, so it's likely they do a good work on that area, too. But they don't aim to average Joe. And Android is aiming for a more tablet related environment, the kind of "one active app at a time" and such. ChromeOS, I see it almost as a joke, since it kind of brings the same concept to the desktop, the same thing Windows 8 tries to do.

1) Hm, may I ask you, what you think "marketing" actually is? It actually means, steering the market towards your needs - that does not exclude dirty tricks. It's more than just commercials.

Errr, I think marketing is taking care of how you look for that market. The barely legal and illegal stuff can hardly be considered marketing, IMO.

I guess it's a good portion of both. I agree on what you're saying, but I'd add, that Ubuntu made Linux (kind of) end user-ready. Without that, I guess, Valve would still not be on Linux land.

And of course, you're right, that most average users don't care for games. However, gamers (as audience) usually sit between: they're not kernel hackers, sure, but usually they're still more capable of using a computer, than the average. Linux is currently entering that market and we're seeing success. Of course, there's still a loooong way to go, but hey - it's something

Even when they have had some relevance on making it "end user ready", I think the major work they did for Linux is in making it end user perceptible. In fact, I think the fact most people think Linux == Ubuntu is related to that: they probably never hear of Linux (or a vague comment, maybe) before Ubuntu.

both MS and Apple do a much better job of hand-holding, when problems arise and the nature of linux problems tend to be more difficult, because of how many more rough-edges there are... Also providing support tends to take longer on a messed up ubuntu machine than a windows or Apple machine... You also mention PC stores; i don't know about where you live, but very few PC stores around here offer any linux support, so that's a non-starter.

Even when they do hold your hand better, I always found my Linux problems easier to solve than the Windows ones. With Linux, I can almost always find docs, mostly thanks to Arch's and Debian's wikis (and when it's not related to init systems, Gentoo's helps a lot, too). Ubuntu's is a lot of help, too. MS, on the other hand, a lot of times has no docs on what actually is failing, or in the worst case you can find contradicting information on problems that arise. I find Windows to be a little easier than Linux, when working correctly. But when it fails, Linux is far easier to fix; in fact, I never need to reinstall because something looks unfixable, and that used to happen a lot with Windows (with 7 it only happens when the user did something very nasty, but in XP it happened relatively often with no apparent reason).

Didn't we worry about fragmentation? What if Ubuntu gets big and people are targeting only Mir?

If they target ONLY Mir, then fragmentation got solved by itself.

Do you have proof that these two are the same person?
If you do, put up. If you don't, shut up.

^This. Also, BO$$ is mostly an annoying being you can't reason with. The other user seems fairly rational.

Since everybody hates Ubuntu except for BO$$, everyone not hating it must be the same person. Deducing from this, you must be BO$$ as well - just as I am. It makes sense, since no one else would question that - except for BO$$

You shouldn't investigate any further. People like him are so deeply sunken in their own personal conspiracy, that arguing with common sense won't get you any further. At the very end, he'll instead ask you to prove that you're not BO$$, which is pretty much impossible for you to do - thus, you must be lying, if you're claiming you're not BO$$ (same is true for disproof, but that doesn't matter :P).

Can I be BO$$, too? Can I? I promise I'll be annoying as hell! Pretty please?

[mrugiero]

Linux IS about choice!
And that's exactly why i hope these patches get rejected!

Canonical had something that was capable of doing what they needed (Wayland), they even said they would use it, and then they just made their own, that can only be used by them.
Canonical's goal is getting more clear evey day, and that is to force everyone to use their own software.

By controling MIR, they know in advance what changes they'll make and the plans, so they are at an advantage against other distros.


I sincerely hope Canonical burns for this.

I just hope they retract on the whole Mir thing.

[intellivision]

Linux IS about choice!
And that's exactly why i hope these patches get rejected!

Canonical had something that was capable of doing what they needed (Wayland), they even said they would use it, and then they just made their own, that can only be used by them.
Canonical's goal is getting more clear evey day, and that is to force everyone to use their own software.

By controling MIR, they know in advance what changes they'll make and the plans, so they are at an advantage against other distros.


I sincerely hope Canonical burns for this.

What have you programmed and designed? I can guarantee it won't be enough to get you on the MESA board, or even enough to let you be a contributor.
Your opinion does not matter to anyone except yourself.

[synaptix]

Your opinion does not matter to anyone.

Neither does yours.

[halfmanhalfamazing]

Screw Canonical

They want Mir? Fine. They should support their own damn patches. Let them support patches for Mesa, for KDE, for whatever else they want. They wanted it, well, they got it. And all the extra work that that entails.

*buntu never contributes upstream. Why should we support Canonical downstream? To help them save a buck or two here or there? Damn greedy SOBs.

"You didn't put in on this, man".

[intellivision]

Neither does yours.

That's the spirit

[synaptix]

They want Mir? Fine. They should support their own damn patches. Let them support patches for Mesa, for KDE, for whatever else they want. They wanted it, well, they got it. And all the extra work that that entails.

*buntu never contributes upstream. Why should we support Canonical downstream? To help them save a buck or two here or there? Damn greedy SOBs.

"You didn't put in on this, man".

KDE? Last I checked they refused Mir and were going with Wayland.

[intellivision]

They want Mir? Fine. They should support their own damn patches. Let them support patches for Mesa, for KDE, for whatever else they want. They wanted it, well, they got it. And all the extra work that that entails.

*buntu never contributes upstream. Why should we support Canonical downstream? To help them save a buck or two here or there? Damn greedy SOBs.

"You didn't put in on this, man".

How about to stop incompatibilities between upstream MESA and Canonical MESA?
It would be exceptionally irritating for developers if their code worked with one but not the other.