New X.Org Server Release While Maintaining Separate XWayland Being Discussed

[mdedetrich]

mdedetrich
Or are you referring to the recent change to Mesa to re-enable having pluggable GBM-backends in order for Nvidia (and others) to supply alternative GBM implementations? In that case, it's not a new feature or even adjustment, it was always there from the beginning. And it is in fact the other way around. It's Nvidia that's finally getting in line (or if you prefer: caving in) and adjusting its proprietary driver to work with the established open source driver mechanism like GBM and DMA-buf. It is Nvidia that will abandon EGL streams for Linux and finally fix their driver to work with Wayland and Xwayland. Kudos to the Linux- and Mesa community for sticking to their guns and not caving in to Nvidias so called "standard" EGL-streams that only they implemented.

Yes I am, and adjustments had to be done to MESA to support NVidia blob (there were discussions and pull requests on it along with XWayland and it was also somewhat controversial). Not sure why you are implying that "nothing happened" and "it was magic"

[tomas]

Yes I am... (there were discussions and pull requests on it along with XWayland and it was also somewhat controversial). "

Any reference to back up this claim (i.e controversial)?

Here is at least the gitlab MR for this change:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/9902

A lot of controversy. Not. 😊.

[mdedetrich]

Any reference to back up this claim (i.e controversial)?

Here is at least the gitlab MR for this change:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/9902

A lot of controversy. Not. 😊.

I think you are alone in thinking that https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/...02#note_979370

[tomas]

I think you are alone in thinking that https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/...02#note_979370

Hah! I knew you would cite that one(!) comment and claim "controversy".😊.
With all due respect to oiaohm, who seems to be both well informed about the history of Mesa and the technology (unlike yourself) , he's not a Mesa developer. Having a random user voice concerns over a patch can hardly be considered "controversy". None of the actual Mesa developers raised any concerns regarding that patch from Nvidia. Not one, as can be seen in that MR. So nice try, but no cigar.

[oiaohm]

1. No one that develops GBM (or more accurately Mesa and related stack) tests BSD as part of the software development of the project. All testing/CI is pretty much done on Linux and the BSD's are pretty much forced to do the rest themselves (this is in stark contrast to X11/Xorg which was deliberately created as an OS neutral project and hence for all of its history up until recently was tested on all platforms, not just linux). This is also why the BSD's are behind on Linux with their graphics stack.

This point horrible in mesa3d history is not true. When GBM was added to Mesa there was test on BSD as part of the software development.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzA5Mg

Yes that was going until about 2009. This has not just happened to mesa3d here. Like winehq testing page use to include BSD being freebsd and openbsd and solarias testing as well as linux back in 2009 as well. You go wine project today there is only Linux testing. What has happened.

The reality is partly explained in that 2009 there is the lead intel developer on mesa being fund by intel to bring KMS to freebsd this is after the first GBM. In the past 9 years we have not seen Intel or AMD pay for a single developer to work on any of the BSD platforms. Just like winehq the problem Mesa3d run into 9 years was no BSD developers to setup testing/CI or to keep up with the patches to keep everything current. Something else to be aware of the biggest runner of testing/CI system on mesa3d is intel so the BSD losing Intel support result in losing being part of Intel CI system this does not just effect Mesa3d this loss was about 2011. Yes BSD disappearing out of X11/Xorg automated test system happens around the same time wonder why that right Intel developers 2011. Yes the new X11/Xorg test system to replace the Intel one was funded by Redhat in 2012 and of course did not include BSD or other Unixs any more.

mdedetrich the reality is horrible. That 2009 BSDs had fairly testing/CI system covering Mesa3D, Inkernel drivers that match up with Mesa3D and X11/Xorg testing by 2012 that all gone because one company decides not to fund this any more. That is not the only change 2011 the last major BSD super computer converted to Linux.

Reality here is Mesa3d and the match open source drivers were just as created as OS neutral project as X11/Xorg was. The same set of events is what leads us today that X11/Xorg, Mesa3d and the open source drivers only have a Linux based testing/CI. The markets that justified Intel and others providing BSD, Solaris and other operating systems a place in the testing/CI just don't exist any more those markets have been completely taken over by Linux.

BSD operating systems is behind with their graphics stack due to lack of market share leading to big players who fund developers not funding the work on BSD. Welcome to the development version of the chicken vs egg problem. To have thedevelopers to have testing/CI(egg) you have to have the market(the chicken) fund and create them. Yes to to have the market you need the egg to mature to a chicken.

The BSD operating systems are in developer resource staved hell but this was not the historic case.

2. GBM was never created to be cross platform in the first place. BSD's actually didn't even have a need for GBM initially because unlike Linux, they don't really care about requiring GPL2 drivers in their tree (in fact they are actively trying to push GPL2 code out of their core distribution packages, if possible).

The GBM code base has always been MIT license not GPLv2. https://docs.mesa3d.org/license.html All the mesa stuff and the majority of the open source graphics drivers in the Linux kernel are in fact MIT license. There is a interest point here the graphics stack of Linux around 3d acceleration did not start in Linux this is way its MIT license.

https://docs.mesa3d.org/history.html

The Original OS of Mesa3d is not Linux. Yes the 1.0 release of mesa does not work on Linux. Yes Mesa3d first support operating system MS-Dos second was IRIS by SGI then a BSD then finally a Linux. Also before the 1.0 release of Mesa3D the developer had been in talks with SGI the first makers of opengl this is where the MIT license comes from for platform compatibility. Yes why majority open source graphics kernel drivers in Linux are MIT license and explained by the 1994-1995 stuff with mesa3d. The kernel drivers being MIT licensed has never changed.

The last major rework in Mesa GBM was 2011 while the last major BSD super computer still existed so was built with BSD and Linux in mind by the Intel developer just in case the BSD supercomputer kept on going. So GBM was created cross platform and maintained for a long time as a cross platform solution.

So GBM claim never created to be cross platform is in fact false. The funding to maintain the CI/testing system that GBM remains cross platform functional has pulled the disappearing act as the market share that use to pay for that BSD and other Unixs has lost to LInux .

The loss of supercomputer market share has been really savage on BSD graphical development. The loss of markets have been savage on other areas like the winehq project not having the developer to maintain the BSD CI/testing setup. I could list over 15000 applications that use to have a CI/testing setup for BSD before 2012 that don't after it.

What has happened here is not a simple not being made cross platform in the first place. This is a case that the funding to maintain the code base being functionally cross platform at the tip of development has disappeared. Really I have no clue how to get that funding back. This does not matter if it X.org X11 server or if it Mesa3d or the kernel mode drivers for graphics or wine or openoffice(yes I know that comes libreoffice but back in 2011it still had BSD CI does not any more)

The future does not look good for the BSD operating systems if something does not change.

[mdedetrich]

Hah! I knew you would cite that one(!) comment and claim "controversy".😊.
With all due respect to oiaohm, who seems to be both well informed about the history of Mesa and the technology (unlike yourself) , he's not a Mesa developer. Having a random user voice concerns over a patch can hardly be considered "controversy". None of the actual Mesa developers raised any concerns regarding that patch from Nvidia. Not one, as can be seen in that MR. So nice try, but no cigar.

Controversy doesn't mean only within the developers, but the community as well (this is also just a single example)

What has happened here is not a simple not being made cross platform in the first place. This is a case that the funding to maintain the code base being functionally cross platform at the tip of development has disappeared. Really I have no clue how to get that funding back. This does not matter if it X.org X11 server or if it Mesa3d or the kernel mode drivers for graphics or wine or openoffice(yes I know that comes libreoffice but back in 2011it still had BSD CI does not any more)

The future does not look good for the BSD operating systems if something does not change.

Thanks for clarifying

[tomas]

Controversy doesn't mean only within the developers, but the community as well (this is also just a single example)

You have more examples regarding this patch? Please share, I'm interested.
Oh, and by the way, you have still not shown any evidence of your claim

"Ironically then Linux's hand was forced".

When and how and in what way?
Nvidia is proposing a patch to re-enable pluggable GBM-backends and at the same time takes on the responsibility to maintain it:

Comment. From Nvidias James Jones in that MR:

"I'm sure NVIDIA wouldn't mind playing the role of ABI watchdog with this level of churn if others find it burdensome.".

Yes, really seems like "forcing hand"....
😂

[oiaohm]

With all due respect to oiaohm, who seems to be both well informed about the history of Mesa and the technology (unlike yourself) , he's not a Mesa developer.

Controversy doesn't mean only within the developers, but the community as well (this is also just a single example)

There is a reason why I know history. I am not a developer but I was around in 1995 when Mesa started and I was in fact using it on MS-Dos. So I am a very long term user of Mesa who has submitted different bug reports over the years.

Thanks for clarifying

No problems. With the GBM and other parts their has been a lot of disinformation made when Nvidia made EGLStream. The Nvidia people missed that the Mesa3d and open source drivers had been designed cross platform this does not suit their narrative to push EGLStream.

Yes the narrative that it has to be GPLv2 is also incorrect also started by the Nvidia people who had not done their history. Linux kernel developers want GPLv2 compatible. Something MIT licensed is GPLv2 compatible and BSD OS license compatible. Compatible is commonly skipped word. Yes thinking Linux kernel is GPLv2 only means that you miss that different sub systems inside Linux kernel are not in fact GPLv2 but just a GPLv2 compatible license. Yes the graphics drivers being MIT is only one of 10 different Linux kernel subsystems that I know that are not in fact GPLv2 but just a GPLv2 compatible license but there is most likely more in the Linux kernel that are not in fact GPLv2 but just GPLv2 compatible.

The reality here is if Mesa3D does not have funding from companies to support BSD and other Unix platforms there is also not the funding to implement EGLStream properly either. Its really simple to think projects like KDE, Gnome.... have unlimited funding the reality is they don't. Worst majority of the funding these days is from companies who profit is Linux based solutions of some form are the ones funding the common desktop environments that are not mac os or windows . That another thing that is gone the pure BSD support companies most of them are no more.

This is the problem where to find the money to put food on the table for the developers of BSD based operating systems and those you need to make software support BSD platform. The possible locations for money are getting more and more rare. Yes the places you would look in the 1990-2010 to get a job as a BSD developer paid by the company simply would not employ you to-do that today instead be expecting Linux skills.

Linux development companies like Redhat/IBM don't have a stack of money to invest in development of a bit of software that they don't have customers to buy support to use so these firms cannot be looked at as solution to BSD lack of funding.

I really serous-ally have no clue how to change what is happening to the BSD platforms. Like I am not expecting Apple or Sony or Oracle or Xinuos OpenServer, to magically step up and start funding the development.

The reality is the market shares have moved and BSD was one of the losers. Losing market share in areas that have lots of experimental money or customers willing to pay support is really hard to come back from in the open software world and it really does come a death of a thousand cuts. Thousand cuts as in progressively getting worse as you have less developers and ever growing backlog of work they cannot catch up on.

[AJSB]

The whole reason I'm looking forward to Wayland being mature enough to meet my needs is that it prevents games from xrandr-ing their way to full-screen and confusing my WM into crunching all my windows and icons into a single monitor.

(Since I've been running the same GeForce GTX750 since the fglrx days, I use MetaModes to lock my desktop resolution. Some games require me to manually edit their config files or use Wine's virtual desktop support to get the damn things suitably windowed, but that's an acceptable tradeoff.)

Taking in account my for my gaming needs i use mostly WINE and that i made a fully functional AutoHotKey Script that makes everything automaticly w/o the intervention of the game *and* that i made a way to make lauhchers also do that directly using XRANDR without messing the WM, i care less about Wayland, but i guess the needs of some are not the needs of others.

[AHOY]

Taking in account my for my gaming needs i use mostly WINE and that i made a fully functional AutoHotKey Script that makes everything automaticly w/o the intervention of the game *and* that i made a way to make lauhchers also do that directly using XRANDR without messing the WM, i care less about Wayland, but i guess the needs of some are not the needs of others.

If you need something propose or sponsor a protocol. There's no technical limitation to what Wayland can do, per se, just policies. Some can be very hard to sell but with patience and convincing technical arguments you'll get it there.

If something you need isn't there yet is because you may have overestimated their importance for desktop usage (aka nobody else did the work for you for free) or they are hard to do it right. Nobody is entitled to a feature even if it sounds obvious, it was the same thing for X except you could just violate the shit out of everything instead of doing it right.