Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Reverts Plans, Will Not Support Ubuntu's XMir

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

  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
    condescending as ever......nothing new
    Oh honey, when you start acting like a kid throwing tantrums, you'll be treated as such. If you want to be treated like a grownup, act like one and don't call people names.

    Stop the bullshit rhetoric.Unity works on other distros albeit not perfectly
    Nnnope, it really doesn't. No other distro is offering Unity, why do you think that is? Oh don't tell me, it's probably just "everyone hates Canonical because they're all jealous" or something, right?
    Apart from requiring the entire graphics stack to be updated, and that it's hard to get Unity to even compile outside its natural environment, the full functionality of Unity is also dependent on closed-source server side code. I'm referring to the smartscopes addition. Don't know if anyone would even want to use that, but it depends on proprietary code to function.

    When Unity8+Mir comes out, the situation will be even worse.

    Blah blah the parrot is at it again
    Wow, what an intelligent, well-reasoned argument. Welp, I'm convinced!

    They are doing the work,stop making out like they never had any intention not doing so.
    Yes they are going to have to do it now, after trying to push the work to others.

    Stop the bullshit rhetoric
    This isn't about the work they have or haven't done.Or that upstream should or shouldn't accept the patch Its about the reason for a patches rejection. "We do not condone or support Canonical in the course of action" that goes against a lot of what Intel have portrayed with their opensource efforts/vison and the "their can be only one" leaves a rather bitter taste
    Take a step back, hotshot. Intel has done nothing to hinder Canonical's efforts to create their own graphics system. They haven't changed the code in ways that would make it harder to run Mir, or anything. They've simply declined to take on the burden of maintainership for a patch that a) goes against their interests and b) that only benefits Canonical/Ubuntu, no one else. If they also disagree with Canonical's decision on a political level it is an entire other issue.

    Intel also has the right to disagree with Canonical's direction and therefore refrain from supporting it. Doesn't make them any less "open" or anything either. Open source is not about others being obligated to support every idiotic move you make.

    If distros choose wayland or mir that's their choice. As with anything, Mir can only bring benefits to those that choose to use it.Canonical have made it very clear that their intention is to have Mir eventually work on all distros. So if a USER , god forbid, made a choice and wished to install Mir on their current distro they could and more importantly should be able to .Of course you are the kind of person that will then say its only useful for one distro due to all those out of tree patches.
    Well first of all, let's face it, there's no benefit from using Mir vs. Wayland. There are no technical reasons for the existence of Mir, it's purely a me-too NIH copycat software. There's really no reason why a USER would want to install Mir on a non-Ubuntu distro. Secondly, it's also easy to say to driver maintainers, etc. that they should support Mir in case users want to use it on whatever distro, but your ignoring the fact that having to maintain the patches that provide Mir-compatibility for the graphics stack is work, it's resources that is away from other things, such as development. It makes no sense to waste limited resources for something that is a corner case at best.

    Which is more useful: Wayland, which all DE's support, or Mir, which is designed only for Unity, will never be supported by anything other than Unity? Unless some distro wants to offer Unity, there's no reason why anyone would even want to use Mir.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Actually, it rather seems they will be using vanilla Gnome shell, and "Tizen shell" is an extension, kind of like classic mode or the Cinnamon precursor MGSE.

    The OS will support Gnome extensions, and you can assumedly even run any DE on it that you can on normal Linux distros. Tizen OS is aimed at "developers and gamers", it's basically just a Linux distro but has all the Tizen HTML5 frameworks added that allows you to run HTML5-based Tizen apps.
    So how many Tizen laptops were announced at IDF this week?

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by chrisb View Post
    I think the doubt being expressed was aimed more at Samsung than Intel. They don't have the greatest record when it comes to GPL compliance and have been called out several times for either not releasing source, or releasing invalid source, sometimes code that didn't even compile. And afaik they still ship closed source kernel drivers even though Linus made it clear that he considers such drivers - developed primarily for the Linux kernel - to be a GPL violation.
    Doesn't really matter, because Samsung doesn't really care about the desktop version of Tizen - they're in it purely for the mobile.

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    Because it won't be using vanilla Gnome Shell, but rather a version that has been changed by Intel and Samsung.
    I personally don't know what incompatibilities they'll introduce, hopefully not enough to break plugins, but we'll see once their plan has been officially announced.
    Actually, it rather seems they will be using vanilla Gnome shell, and "Tizen shell" is an extension, kind of like classic mode or the Cinnamon precursor MGSE.

    The OS will support Gnome extensions, and you can assumedly even run any DE on it that you can on normal Linux distros. Tizen OS is aimed at "developers and gamers", it's basically just a Linux distro but has all the Tizen HTML5 frameworks added that allows you to run HTML5-based Tizen apps.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    I'm waiting for the day when a kernel developer sues a company like Samsung for copyright violation for proprietary kernel drivers. Pity that there's too much money invested in Linux for that to really succeed.
    In almost all cases, companies can be brought into compliance without suing and that is more economical as well as the right thing to do. Suing companies should be always done as a last resort. In past cases, Samsung has complied http://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/a...exfat-samsung/

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by chrisb View Post
    I think the doubt being expressed was aimed more at Samsung than Intel. They don't have the greatest record when it comes to GPL compliance and have been called out several times for either not releasing source, or releasing invalid source, sometimes code that didn't even compile. And afaik they still ship closed source kernel drivers even though Linus made it clear that he considers such drivers - developed primarily for the Linux kernel - to be a GPL violation.
    Samsung has already been brought into compliance before http://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/a...exfat-samsung/ If you have further ongoing evidence of non compliance, feel free to post them publicly or better yet contact the software freedom conservacy. Several Linux kernel developers are participating in the enforcement process including but not limited to Matthew Garett and Greg KH.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by chrisb View Post
    I think the doubt being expressed was aimed more at Samsung than Intel. They don't have the greatest record when it comes to GPL compliance and have been called out several times for either not releasing source, or releasing invalid source, sometimes code that didn't even compile. And afaik they still ship closed source kernel drivers even though Linus made it clear that he considers such drivers - developed primarily for the Linux kernel - to be a GPL violation.
    I'm waiting for the day when a kernel developer sues a company like Samsung for copyright violation for proprietary kernel drivers.
    Pity that there's too much money invested in Linux for that to really succeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • talvik
    replied
    Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
    Stop the bullshit rhetoric.Unity works on other distros albeit not perfectly
    "not perfectly"? "barely manages to compile/run" is a more accurate description. To run Unity you to pull a bunch of Ubuntu patched only packages, which in turn will replace many default distro packages. This can't be said about any other DE.

    But Unity on Mir is going to fix that. Try porting Unity and you have to pull Ubuntu patched: mesa, qt, gtk, gnome, x, video drivers, lightdm... So for example, if I somehow manage to get Unity/Mir on Fedora, it would replace so many packages that it wouldn't be Fedora anymore (lots of bugs would be invalid, many packages would conflict, other DEs would be removed)
    It's becoming one big welded interdependent mess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
    Sure it does but it also says

    Signed-off-by: Christopher James Halse Rogers <[email protected]>
    Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>

    From my understanding The sign-off-by certifies who wrote or is involved in the open-source patch.

    So i am wrong about that? If not then why does Christopher appear on the signed-off ?
    OK, I stand corrected on that.

    If distros choose wayland or mir that's their choice. As with anything, Mir can only bring benefits to those that choose to use it.Canonical have made it very clear that their intention is to have Mir eventually work on all distros.
    You are right, if a user wants to use Mir (which implies using Unity) then he has the right to do so. All he has to do to achieve that goal is to either use Ubuntu or port the complete Mir/Unity stack to his distro of choice. And there we are at the core of the problem: If you want to run Unity you have to use Mir, but for technical reasons it is impossible for any other DE/WM to support Mir. So any distro that wants to offer Unity to its users has also to port and maintain the complete Mir stack. Now tell me, which sane distro developer will choose to maintain the complete Mir stack just for one DE? You know that manpower is scarce for most distributions? That testing is nearly impossible as long as not a significant portion of the users of that specific distro are using Mir/Unity?
    Of course Canonical wants to see Mir/Unity run on other distros, but it is almost impossible for exactly those reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • chrisb
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    If you think Intel would volunteer to be a case study to remove that ambiguity by trying to link proprietary code against a GPL'ed component and risk getting sued by FSF, you are just fooling yourself. Companies like Intel are enormously averse of licensing games like that and have enough experience with GPL'ed code and can be entirely relied upon never to do that. If they are shipping a modification of GNOME shell, it will remain GPL'ed. Whether they change interfaces is orthogonal to this.
    I think the doubt being expressed was aimed more at Samsung than Intel. They don't have the greatest record when it comes to GPL compliance and have been called out several times for either not releasing source, or releasing invalid source, sometimes code that didn't even compile. And afaik they still ship closed source kernel drivers even though Linus made it clear that he considers such drivers - developed primarily for the Linux kernel - to be a GPL violation.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X