Canonical Posts 15 Mesa Patches To Support Mir

[mrugiero]

So? That's not a problem for anyone but Canonical, and for the most part, it's a self-inflicted one. They're the ones choosing to go in a different direction from the one chosen by pretty much everyone else - both upstreams, and the other distros.

It seems like I have to repeat this: no graphics programmer targets mesa. Any difference between OpenGL specification and what mesa does is a bug or a missing feature. So, if there is any difference, is a bug in the one who diverges from the specification, and this means that either:

A) Upstream's code has a bug, in which case they will probably share it with Canonical, and mesa will have to fix it, and Canonical will probably just backport the fix;
or
B) Canonical's code has a bug, in which case Canonical should fix it.

If it goes upstream, the same applies, with the exception that Canonical's bugs will bother also non-Ubuntu users.

EDIT: Not that I oppose to them being accepted, as I said, I want Mir to either fail horribly or to be a good product; what I don't want in the least is something in between, causing fragmentation AND being a bad product.

[duby229]

Thank You.

Whether devs want to admit it or not, there is a certain amount of end user choice involved. The choice to accept the dumbass shit you enforce, or the choice to move on to something else. At minimum there will always be that choice.

[mrugiero]

Ok, to be fair, it's still weekend, the patch set has not been posted too long ago.
There's still time to reply. TBH, I don't think this will happen.

Yes, I didn't considered that because I'm usually pretty lost with the days.

I fully agree with you. And to me a big chance for Canonical to get back into
discussion with the freedesktop.org devs is to show up and discuss and present something at XDC2013.
After all they [Canonical] want some of their code merged upstream to an fdo project [Mesa].

Of course, this needs balls... Don't think they'll do this.

Fully agree.

We DONT CARE if you like or hate Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Torvalds, Mir or Wayland. Shut the fuck up and stay on topic.

We don't care if you like reading about it.

Wayland is just RPC library, so I can even fly to space with wayland - if someone will imlement it. Weston is display server (just look at source code before saying that it isn't), it enforces CSD and if someone will create yet one wayland-based server, you will see even more critisism than with Mir: "oh, they give up CSD to make our Weston less popular because no one toolkit writer actually wants to implement CSD".

Yet, it's a reference, and nobody is supposed to actually use it. If KDE wants their compositor to do server side decorations (which, IIRC, they do want), they will do that. And the same for everyone.
Weston is not supposed to be popular. You ask me to read the code, I ask you to read the readme. It's not supposed to be used at all in a real desktop.
KDE implements its own compositor, E18 implements its own compositor, GNOME Shell AFAIK implements its own compositor. None of them use Weston.
The toolkits aren't built again Weston, they are built against Wayland, so they can't care less how Weston decorates its windows or avoids decorating them.

Weston is compositor so what the F are you talking about? Yet another ubuntard.

A compositor can be a server, according to the docs. Can be otherwise, too.

[Delgarde]

It would lead to canonical's mesa packages diverging more and more from upstream, potentially introducing issues.

So? That's not a problem for anyone but Canonical, and for the most part, it's a self-inflicted one. They're the ones choosing to go in a different direction from the one chosen by pretty much everyone else - both upstreams, and the other distros.

[intellivision]

It never was.

In regards to that article, it is prudent to listen to the wishes of the community. The disaster that was Gnome-shell lead to a large exodus of users of that DE to others, it was ultimately the Gnome team that suffered the most.

[intellivision]

hmm you tell me? in fall back

I was going off the code available in trunk, which is 0.0.5.
And I couldn't care less about your ability to code, I'm not the sympathy society.

[synaptix]

Google

Yes Google, so we can have a desktop Linux that invades your privacy.

No thanks.

[johnc]

Haha that post is genius. Let the shitaroo hit the fan!

That guy sounds like a real pompous ass. So basically your typical Linux developer.

At this point we are pretty much dependent on Canonical (or maybe Google) giving us a decent Linux desktop because not a single one of the rest of them have a clue. Except maybe Mint... but those guys are heavily basing on Ubuntu so that explains their sanity.

[LinuxGamer]

You are performing rectal ventriloquism.

Majority: A subset of any set that consists of more than 50% of said set's elements. In simple terms: it means more than half, period. No ifs, ors or buts.

Plurality: A subset of any set that is larger than any other subset within the same set. A plurality does not necessarily have to be a majority.

What you're talking about is a plurality. Not a majority.

yeah that big 30%

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?82481-Canonical-Posts-15-Mesa-Patches-To-Support-Mir&p=344307&highlight=#post344307

[dee.]

When you have percentages spread in chunks like 32%, a bunch of discreet 10% blocks and a handful of 5%, 3%, etc etc chunks the 32% is going to be the largest single contiguous slice in the pie and is hence the 'majority', even if it's not >50%.

You are performing rectal ventriloquism.

Majority: A subset of any set that consists of more than 50% of said set's elements. In simple terms: it means more than half, period. No ifs, ors or buts.

Plurality: A subset of any set that is larger than any other subset within the same set. A plurality does not necessarily have to be a majority.

What you're talking about is a plurality. Not a majority.