Microsoft Enables OpenGL 4.6 Support Over Direct3D 12

[dragon321]

Propertiary way doesn't mean necesserly closed source in this case. Let's imagine abstract situation:

- Google tomorrow (well ad company loves fingerprinting users) says tomorrow we will make Motherboard API in google chrome that will expose motherboard number to internet. They give some bullshit reason like autodetectecting what mobo you have to download drivers from internet. They literally read string from system info or other place and pass it to internet. They don't give a shit about standards. For some reason they also make it necessery to let's say use youtube.
- Firefox is in wierd situation. They have to support it but obviously don't want to send to internet such thing. So Mozilla now brainstorms what to do. Every hour they lose users because youtube doesn't work. But it is obvious they cannot expose such thing to internet. So they make a new thing that fakes it. Random string. Well it kind of works. Until some legitimate use case like OEM manufacture want to use that feature for sake of giving drivers and Firefox won't work again. So mozilla implements entire settings page to be able to pick when to use fake and when to use real whitelist page settings, dialogues GUI etc.

Not only Mozilla lost on it, they also spend way more engineering hours while technically chromium shows greatly how it exposes such info to internet.

So when such things don't happen - well when you make API/standard/anything you make RFC (Request for comment) or standard and publish it somewhere and ask for opinions suggestions criticism from other sides and generally in the end you need some sides to shake hands. Gnome/Mutter developers in my opinion do not shake hands to a lot of things that competitor wants or need. Explicit sync is hilarious case like every GPU maker wants it, KDE is fine with it, WLroots want it, and gnome people still want implicit and don't care about problems Nvidia has or someone else..

I didn't say that it needs to be closed source. Still Wayland is not example of that when not only GNOME developers are working and approving new interfaces.

As for the GNOME "not shaking hands with competitors" - this is not always true. For example GNOME implemented fractional scale protocol despite the fact that they don't support it on GTK so it's not needed for them. As for the explicit sync, there is PR for GNOME but it's not merged due to fact that it's still not complete. GNOME doesn't implements interfaces that are not part of Wayland and explicit sync interface is still not (merge request is still open). wlroots didn't implement this as well for same reasons. No idea about KDE.

[piotrj3]

You're right, "extend in proprietary way". That's why it clearly doesn't apply to Wayland (or X11 and Linux) in any way because Wayland is extended in open way. It's not like GNOME or somebody else want to have something in Wayland so it just throws it and tells to others that they need to support it. Creating new standard in Wayland requires agreement from compositors developers. Just take a look at merge requests for wayland-protocols repository and you will see that not only GNOME developers are participating in discussions there but also KDE and wlroots/Sway developers. How is that EEE?

Microsoft work on Mesa is also not an example of EEE. It would be if they would fork Mesa and create their own "enhanced" Mesa with those features (just like they did with Java) but since they upstream all of their code, there is no EEE here. EEE is not an insult to describe whatever somebody may don't like or when some corporation add their stuff to open source project. It's specific term that clearly doesn't apply here.

Propertiary way doesn't mean necesserly closed source in this case. Let's imagine abstract situation:

- Google tomorrow (well ad company loves fingerprinting users) says tomorrow we will make Motherboard API in google chrome that will expose motherboard number to internet. They give some bullshit reason like autodetectecting what mobo you have to download drivers from internet. They literally read string from system info or other place and pass it to internet. They don't give a shit about standards. For some reason they also make it necessery to let's say use youtube.
- Firefox is in wierd situation. They have to support it but obviously don't want to send to internet such thing. So Mozilla now brainstorms what to do. Every hour they lose users because youtube doesn't work. But it is obvious they cannot expose such thing to internet. So they make a new thing that fakes it. Random string. Well it kind of works. Until some legitimate use case like OEM manufacture want to use that feature for sake of giving drivers and Firefox won't work again. So mozilla implements entire settings page to be able to pick when to use fake and when to use real whitelist page settings, dialogues GUI etc.

Not only Mozilla lost on it, they also spend way more engineering hours while technically chromium shows greatly how it exposes such info to internet.

So when such things don't happen - well when you make API/standard/anything you make RFC (Request for comment) or standard and publish it somewhere and ask for opinions suggestions criticism from other sides and generally in the end you need some sides to shake hands. Gnome/Mutter developers in my opinion do not shake hands to a lot of things that competitor wants or need. Explicit sync is hilarious case like every GPU maker wants it, KDE is fine with it, WLroots want it, and gnome people still want implicit and don't care about problems Nvidia has or someone else..

[dragon321]

Like piotrj3 said, open standards are precisely how you infiltrate and EEE because Extend isn't normally done on proprietary applications. [...]

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. [...]

Depending on what you mean by that, it definitely applies to open standards. The "extend" phase is where someone adds a nonstandard extension to their implementation, but has enough market power to make it defacto-standard.

You're right, "extend in proprietary way". That's why it clearly doesn't apply to Wayland (or X11 and Linux) in any way because Wayland is extended in open way. It's not like GNOME or somebody else want to have something in Wayland so it just throws it and tells to others that they need to support it. Creating new standard in Wayland requires agreement from compositors developers. Just take a look at merge requests for wayland-protocols repository and you will see that not only GNOME developers are participating in discussions there but also KDE and wlroots/Sway developers. How is that EEE?

Microsoft work on Mesa is also not an example of EEE. It would be if they would fork Mesa and create their own "enhanced" Mesa with those features (just like they did with Java) but since they upstream all of their code, there is no EEE here. EEE is not an insult to describe whatever somebody may don't like or when some corporation add their stuff to open source project. It's specific term that clearly doesn't apply here.

[torsionbar28]

Microsoft has a long history of perverting open standards, developing forks that only work on Windows. Aka EEE. They heavily promote their broken bastardized version for financial benefit, via vendor lock-in. This is not opinion, this is historical record. For this reason, anytime Microsoft claims to have adopted a new open standard, those who have been around this industry for a while are rightly concerned. We know the beast, we know its patterns. Microsoft developing an OpenGL compatibility layer is not EEE on it's own... but history tells us it's step 1. Step 2 is to break compatibility via proprietary extensions, or otherwise incentivize developers to write code that only works on Windows. We've been down this path many times before. If you think Microsoft is doing this for any reason other than to move developers from Linux to Windows, you must be new around here.

[skeevy420]

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)

No, but KWinFT uses wlroots. I've only seen anecdotal comments from people involved with KDE over the years about it being in KWin actual.

[coder]

Those Unix guys kept their doors shut.

You forgot about POSIX. Also, the X Consortium was non vendor-specific.

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.

[ezst036]

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.

[ezst036]

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)

[Gusar]

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?

[timofonic]

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.