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.
Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
11–20 of 97 posts
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#12According 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…
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
#13What 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.
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#14What 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.
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
#15What 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.
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#16What 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.
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#17According 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…
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#18What 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.
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#19Earlier 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…
Re: Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server
#20So 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.