Live data from Hacker News

Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

news.softpedia.com

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#11
post #5

What an awful move. Note that they are deliberately hurting open source software by restricting contributions for a purely political reason. Obviously it will result in an Ubuntu fork of the intel drivers, which will eventually lead to a situation where the only consequence is a more painful workflow for Ubuntu core contributers and early adopters looking for up to date drivers.

You are of course assuming Ubuntu can maintain Intel drivers, which given their upstream contribution track record might be a tall order.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#12
post #6

According to Phornoix, Chris Wilson of Intel wrote this in a Git commit: We do not condone or support Canonical in the course of action they have chosen, and will not carry XMir patches upstream. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjY Phoronix's link to said commit does not work, so it is hard to infer context. But I would assume that "the course of action they have chosen" refers to working on Mi…

""the course of action they have chosen" refers to working on Mir in the first place rather than contributing to Wayland. If that's the case, can't say I really blame Intel." I absolutely blame Intel. Whatever you think about Ubuntu's decision to make their own X server, it is childish to not include working patches for purely political reasons. It's not like Ubuntu is asking Intel to do their work for them. So Canon…

Most upstreams will generally accept responsibility for keeping code working - just having it "merged" often means then handling bug reports, testing, etc. If the Intel people don't want to maintain specialized Ubuntu-only environments just to test the Mir codepaths, that's kind of their call.

It probably also didn't help that Canonical employees were using it as a political football to boot other GPU vendors, e.g. https://twitter.com/olliries/status/375704285083738112

It was Canonical's decision to fork, if they have to bear the costs of the fork then so be it.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#13
post #10
post #5

What an awful move. Note that they are deliberately hurting open source software by restricting contributions for a purely political reason. Obviously it will result in an Ubuntu fork of the intel drivers, which will eventually lead to a situation where the only consequence is a more painful workflow for Ubuntu core contributers and early adopters looking for up to date drivers.

Does not surprise me. Many guys in FOSS tend to like Intel, but not all Intel departments are FOSS friendly. Even the graphics division, tends to put more resources into DirectX tooling and processors like the PowerVR family, than what they contribute to X.

[deleted]

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#14
post #5

What an awful move. Note that they are deliberately hurting open source software by restricting contributions for a purely political reason. Obviously it will result in an Ubuntu fork of the intel drivers, which will eventually lead to a situation where the only consequence is a more painful workflow for Ubuntu core contributers and early adopters looking for up to date drivers.

What are you even talking about? Most of the Wayland developers work at Intel.

Also, not even other *buntu maintainers are going with Mir, so unless you are equating Canonical with open source, you must be a tad lost.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#15
post #5

What an awful move. Note that they are deliberately hurting open source software by restricting contributions for a purely political reason. Obviously it will result in an Ubuntu fork of the intel drivers, which will eventually lead to a situation where the only consequence is a more painful workflow for Ubuntu core contributers and early adopters looking for up to date drivers.

Ubuntu is the one that decided to go their own way. Why does Intel have to support them?

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#16
post #10
post #5

What an awful move. Note that they are deliberately hurting open source software by restricting contributions for a purely political reason. Obviously it will result in an Ubuntu fork of the intel drivers, which will eventually lead to a situation where the only consequence is a more painful workflow for Ubuntu core contributers and early adopters looking for up to date drivers.

Does not surprise me. Many guys in FOSS tend to like Intel, but not all Intel departments are FOSS friendly. Even the graphics division, tends to put more resources into DirectX tooling and processors like the PowerVR family, than what they contribute to X.

This is not about FOSS, it is about one man's vision to circumvent the mainstream developer community. Ubuntu chose to make the transition from pre-configuring Debian and making compiz themes for Gnome to trying its hand at systems-level programming. It would be somewhat self-assured of them to assume that all hardware vendors, who are already heavily invested in Linux, as a platform, would necessarily pick up the slack, especially when those investments did not foresee a move like Mir.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#17
post #6

According to Phornoix, Chris Wilson of Intel wrote this in a Git commit: We do not condone or support Canonical in the course of action they have chosen, and will not carry XMir patches upstream. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjY Phoronix's link to said commit does not work, so it is hard to infer context. But I would assume that "the course of action they have chosen" refers to working on Mi…

""the course of action they have chosen" refers to working on Mir in the first place rather than contributing to Wayland. If that's the case, can't say I really blame Intel." I absolutely blame Intel. Whatever you think about Ubuntu's decision to make their own X server, it is childish to not include working patches for purely political reasons. It's not like Ubuntu is asking Intel to do their work for them. So Canon…

What about the FUD storm about Wayland that Canonnical released? When Mir was announced Canonnical and Shuttleworth basically shat on every Wayland developer. They even edited and/or removed their statements later on, it was so bad.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#18
post #5

What an awful move. Note that they are deliberately hurting open source software by restricting contributions for a purely political reason. Obviously it will result in an Ubuntu fork of the intel drivers, which will eventually lead to a situation where the only consequence is a more painful workflow for Ubuntu core contributers and early adopters looking for up to date drivers.

Ubuntu is creating Mir for political reasons. There's no reason for upstream projects to maintain code that only benefits a single distribution.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#19
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not surprise me. Many guys in FOSS tend to like Intel, but not all Intel departments are FOSS friendly. Even the graphics division, tends to put more resources into DirectX tooling and processors like the PowerVR family, than what they contribute to X.

This is not about FOSS, it is about one man's vision to circumvent the mainstream developer community. Ubuntu chose to make the transition from pre-configuring Debian and making compiz themes for Gnome to trying its hand at systems-level programming. It would be somewhat self-assured of them to assume that all hardware vendors, who are already heavily invested in Linux, as a platform, would necessarily pick up the sl…

I don't say otherwise, just that Intel as a company is a corporation like any other, with contributions to FOSS also driven by internal politics.

Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

#20
For those interested, this comment is caused by this commit revert: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com...

So originally the XMir support was merged in, then reverted on instructions from Higher Ups.

I can't really blame them, if they make driver changes Intel would have to adapt the XMir code to cope with them.

Post reply on HN