Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Enables OpenGL 4.6 Support Over Direct3D 12

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by dragon321 View Post

    Wow, so much text just to say that you have no idea what EEE is and how does it work.

    Open standards (like Wayland) can't do EEE. Your points doesn't make any sense and are completely wrong. Especially that part about how Wayland is supposed to make everybody use GNOME or blocks standardization of things like screen capturing which is already standardized in Wayland with portals. I guess with that logic we can also say that X.Org Server is example of EEE because we used to have different X11 servers but X.Org Server embraced, extended and extinguished them all. Even Linux is example of EEE by that logic, we had many different Unix and Unix-like operating systems but Linux embraced, extended and extinguished them all.
    Exactly opposite. You need open standard to make EEE work. You take standard, you extend it in proprietary way, and you disadvantage competitors from not supporting them. It hard to implement EEE on propertiary standard because it is hard to be competitive with creator of propertiary standard. But in case of open standard, especially decentralized it is. And Mutter stuff really feel like that.

    Most common 2 examples is general web extend with ActiveX controls and 2nd was attempt of Microsoft to clone Java but replace certain parts of it like JNI with Jdirect and this way making MS java stuff only work on windows (not possible to work on linux/macos). Java is open source and a lot of stuff like JNI is open spec, while web is literally open. There were also efforts to murder with EEE KHTML, that literally is core of all browers except Firefox (webkit and jscore all comes from KHTML and KJS). As we can see with entire web dominated by KDE KHTML it was unsuccesful :P. You are allowed to use Khrome and Diskord and so on.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      Yes, it was an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole.


      Depending on what you mean by that, it definitely applies to open standards. The "extend" phase is where someone adds a nonstandard extension to the standard, but has enough market power to make it defacto-standard.
      That would make wlroots the EEE entity, cos there's a whole Wayland world out there built around wlr protocols that Gnome does not support.

      So down with wlroots, grab your torches and pitchforks! Err...

      Basically, EEE for sure used to be a thing, but in this thread it's being perverted by people with an agenda to suit that agenda.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Gusar View Post

        That would make wlroots the EEE entity, cos there's a whole Wayland world out there built around wlr protocols that Gnome does not support.

        So down with wlroots, grab your torches and pitchforks! Err...

        Basically, EEE for sure used to be a thing, but in this thread it's being perverted by people with an agenda to suit that agenda.
        In market share GNOME is the defacto standard. It's the EEE. Look at systemd requirements and CSD stuff, etc.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by dragon321 View Post

          Wow, so much text just to say that you have no idea what EEE is and how does it work.

          Open standards (like Wayland) can't do EEE. Your points doesn't make any sense and are completely wrong. Especially that part about how Wayland is supposed to make everybody use GNOME or blocks standardization of things like screen capturing which is already standardized in Wayland with portals. I guess with that logic we can also say that X.Org Server is example of EEE because we used to have different X11 servers but X.Org Server embraced, extended and extinguished them all. Even Linux is example of EEE by that logic, we had many different Unix and Unix-like operating systems but Linux embraced, extended and extinguished them all.
          Like piotrj3 said, open standards are precisely how you infiltrate and EEE because Extend isn't normally done on proprietary applications. I say that knowing some game mods can be considered EEE when they eventually turn into DayZ or PubG or Black Mesa, but Game Modding is the exception to the rule. No body Extends Photoshop or WinAMP with a plugin in the hopes that the end user will go "Dizzamn, that Photoshop Skeevy Plugin is kickass. I should go buy Skeevyshop instead." What open source people do, however, is fork stuff and their fork sometimes overtakes what it forked. What proprietary people do is make a competing product and hope the masses flock to it so they become the new EEE. Everybody want to be the new CoD or LoL.

          Speaking of forks, your X.org Server position is misleading. XFree86 did that role but had a license change from the MIT to a custom license which made it GPLv2 incompatible. Because the license change pissed people off it was forked into X.org Server, the MIT license restored, and that fork was adopted by the rest of the open source community. While it can technically be seen as EEE, IMHO, it's less EEE and more of a history lesson about "don't shoot yourself in the foot with dumbass licensing."

          If a technology is already EEEing us, re-licenses itself, pisses people off, gets forked, and then fork EEEs us, is that a new EEE or the Same Ole, Same Ole?

          But to get back to code and open standards, those folks up in Massachusetts learned from their mistakes with XFree86 and X.org. Instead of providing a centralized display server anyone could Extend, they changed it up to providing a centralized display protocol anyone could Embrace. You see, providing a centralized display server means it's a lot easier for anyone else to skip the Embrace step so they can go right to Extending the Linux Desktop to make a product that competes with and could Extinguish GNOME. By providing just a protocol and primarily focusing on, Embracing, their stuff only, they hope other organizations will just give up and just Embrace and Extend GNOME and Mutter's implementation of Wayland and that all their competition will Extinguish due to not being able to Embrace Wayland to begin with.

          For the record, EEE when done right isn't a bad thing. There are times when there should only be one good way to do something like how X.org was an EEE for the greater good or how PulseAudio, PipeWire and Vulkan are currently EEEs for the greater good. The Red Hat of olden times would have forked Wayland into something centralized around a common display server like wl-roots to back and provide that one good way for all of us instead of doing an EEE that benefits them more than anyone else.
          Last edited by skeevy420; 20 November 2023, 10:36 AM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by timofonic View Post

            In market share GNOME is the defacto standard. It's the EEE. Look at systemd requirements and CSD stuff, etc.
            How can Gnome be EEE when I just told you there's a whole world of applications (window managers, panels, etc) that don't give a hoot about Gnome and do their own thing just fine using wlr protocols?

            Also, how is reliance on systemd EEE? For that matter how is systemd itself EEE? Distros adopted systemd cos they saw it as an improvement over the hodgepodge of home-grown compatible-with-nothing init scripts. Also, AFAIK Gnome only needs session management, which can be provided by elogind, not the entirety of systemd. CSD stuff? Again, the wlr world doesn't give a hoot about that, they use xdg-decoration.

            Perfect example of people throwing around stuff like EEE or "systemd bad" without much clue about what's actually available and how things actually work.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Gusar View Post

              How can Gnome be EEE when I just told you there's a whole world of applications (window managers, panels, etc) that don't give a hoot about Gnome and do their own thing just fine using wlr protocols?

              Also, how is reliance on systemd EEE? For that matter how is systemd itself EEE? Distros adopted systemd cos they saw it as an improvement over the hodgepodge of home-grown compatible-with-nothing init scripts. Also, AFAIK Gnome only needs session management, which can be provided by elogind, not the entirety of systemd. CSD stuff? Again, the wlr world doesn't give a hoot about that, they use xdg-decoration.

              Perfect example of people throwing around stuff like EEE or "systemd bad" without much clue about what's actually available and how things actually work.
              GNOME applications can work fine with other window managers, as long as they support the xdg-decoration protocol.

              GNOME does not force anyone to use systemd, but it does benefit from it.

              GNOME impose their own agenda and vision to the rest of the FOSS ecosystem, no collaboration with other projects outside their views and even less other Desktop Environments. GNOME project is obsessed with simplicity at all cost.

              GNOME and systemd are supported by corporations and organizations, such as Red Hat, IBM, Canonical, and the GNOME Foundation, that have a vision and a direction for the Linux landscape. But those may not align with the interests or preferences of other users and developers.

              GNOME and systemd add features or extensions to existing standards or technologies, making them more compatible or dependent on GNOME and systemd.

              systemd adds its own extensions to the Linux kernel, such as cgroups v2, systemd-boot, systemd-homed, systemd-resolved, systemd-networkd, and systemd-oomd. These extensions are open specifications, that are maintained by the systemd developers.

              GNOME also adds its own extensions to existing standards or technologies, such as GTK, GStreamer, Gnome Shell, Gnome Online Accounts, Gnome Software, and Flatpak. These extensions are open APIs, that are maintained by the GNOME developers.

              GNOME influences massively all the Linux desktop ecosystem. Too much, diversification and massive invest in alternatives is urgently needed to make Linux desktop evolve.

              COSMIC can be a great GNOME alternative. I prefer KDE, but COSMIC may be better than GNOME at the same user target.

              GNOME and related corporations are like a giant octopus that has its tentacles wrapped around the Linux desktop ecosystem. It’s too big, too powerful, and too greedy for my taste. It needs some serious competition and innovation from other projects and standards, or else it will suffocate the diversity and creativity of the Linux desktop.​

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by timofonic View Post

                GNOME applications can work fine with other window managers, as long as they support the xdg-decoration protocol.

                GNOME does not force anyone to use systemd, but it does benefit from it.

                GNOME impose their own agenda and vision to the rest of the FOSS ecosystem, no collaboration with other projects outside their views and even less other Desktop Environments. GNOME project is obsessed with simplicity at all cost.

                GNOME and systemd are supported by corporations and organizations, such as Red Hat, IBM, Canonical, and the GNOME Foundation, that have a vision and a direction for the Linux landscape. But those may not align with the interests or preferences of other users and developers.

                GNOME and systemd add features or extensions to existing standards or technologies, making them more compatible or dependent on GNOME and systemd.

                systemd adds its own extensions to the Linux kernel, such as cgroups v2, systemd-boot, systemd-homed, systemd-resolved, systemd-networkd, and systemd-oomd. These extensions are open specifications, that are maintained by the systemd developers.

                GNOME also adds its own extensions to existing standards or technologies, such as GTK, GStreamer, Gnome Shell, Gnome Online Accounts, Gnome Software, and Flatpak. These extensions are open APIs, that are maintained by the GNOME developers.

                GNOME influences massively all the Linux desktop ecosystem. Too much, diversification and massive invest in alternatives is urgently needed to make Linux desktop evolve.

                COSMIC can be a great GNOME alternative. I prefer KDE, but COSMIC may be better than GNOME at the same user target.

                GNOME and related corporations are like a giant octopus that has its tentacles wrapped around the Linux desktop ecosystem. It’s too big, too powerful, and too greedy for my taste. It needs some serious competition and innovation from other projects and standards, or else it will suffocate the diversity and creativity of the Linux desktop.​
                None of that is EEE.

                Do I really need to say for a third time that there's a whole world of applications out there that doesn't give a hoot about Gnome?

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  That's why I really hope that KDE adopts wl-roots into KWin. If a major project like KDE adopts wl-roots, there are greater hopes that other major projects and companies will be more likely to do the same.
                  Do you know if someone has put a feature enhancement into the KDE bugtracker to hopefully discuss and implement KWin-WL-Roots? (and move off of whatever internal/custom implementations they have)
                  Last edited by ezst036; 20 November 2023, 11:53 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
                    we had many different Unix and Unix-like operating systems but Linux embraced, extended and extinguished them all.
                    Well, I mean, to be fair, Linux did in fact EEE the snot out of the old school Unixes. But, keep in mind all we wanted was a free OS we could tinker with and use on our own. We didn't target Unix for assassination. Those Unix guys kept their doors shut. If ATT or heck probably even Microsoft themselves with Xenix would've FOSS'ed their OS we all would've started using it long ago. Linux just happened to be the first one. Had Linux never come around, its likely that Solaris (which did eventually become open source) would probably have been our OS of choice or also *BSD would be more ahead than it is today.

                    So to that extent, Linux was never about subversion, destruction, and assassination. Perhaps the best way to look at it instead of EEE would be more like "collateral damage." We just wanted our own and they didn't want to share.

                    Wheras Microsoft EEE is all about those things: subversion, destruction, and assassination.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by ezst036 View Post
                      Those Unix guys kept their doors shut.
                      You forgot about POSIX. Also, the X Consortium was non vendor-specific.

                      Originally posted by ezst036 View Post
                      If ATT or heck probably even Microsoft themselves with Xenix would've FOSS'ed their OS we all would've started using it long ago. Linux just happened to be the first one.
                      NetBSD was released long before most people started using Linux.

                      Also, the FSF was trying to make Hurd, but Linux beat it to the punch.
                      Last edited by coder; 21 November 2023, 04:39 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X