Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Says No to Ubuntu's New Display Server

news.softpedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

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

#31

Post by csense »

sitharus wrote: post #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.

What is the reasoning for putting this code in the video driver?

The "Theory of Operation" comment in the merged-then-reverted code is insightful. Apparently, the code is supposed to figure out which parts of windows are damaged, and then tell the windowing system to do something about it.

IMHO, windows are not a concept that should even exist in the video driver [1]. They should be entirely under control of the windowing system. Which means that figuring out which parts of windows are damaged is logic that should totally reside in the windowing system, having no parts in the video driver.

If this code must be in the driver because it needs to access private data/functionality that's not visible outside the driver, then an API to expose those driver internals to the windowing system would be a design that better separates those layers.

Reverting this commit seems like a sound technical decision to me. Assuming Intel's decision is politically motivated, and then getting outraged about it, seems counterproductive.

[1] Even if this concept has already leaked into the driver for X or other windowing systems, doesn't mean that questionable designs used in old code should be allowed in new code.

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

#32

Post by tjdetwiler »

tinco wrote: 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.

This is something Canonical should have considered before developing they're own display server. The community attitude from the start seems to generally be "we won't carry support upstream", so this doesn't seem unreasonable.

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

#33

Post by asveikau »

azakai wrote: post #26
damien wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it's political to let Canonical keep the burden of maintaining code that only they care about...

Is that what is happening here? Intel's explanation of "The Management" handing down orders doesn't imply technical reasons were the motivation. It's unclear. If there are technical reasons - like the one you mentioned - let's hear them, they might be valid.

Does anyone else see the "-The Management" comment as having more than a tinge of sarcasm? I think people are taking it a little too seriously.

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

#34

Post by damien »

azakai wrote: post #26
damien wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it's political to let Canonical keep the burden of maintaining code that only they care about...

Is that what is happening here? Intel's explanation of "The Management" handing down orders doesn't imply technical reasons were the motivation. It's unclear. If there are technical reasons - like the one you mentioned - let's hear them, they might be valid.

I don't think I mentioned any technical reason? Allocating developer time is generally a management decision.

If anything, Intel has already put their resources into Wayland and the lack of any good technical reasons for Mir's existence probably played a large role in their decision.

I don't see why this is so shocking really, many other projects in the Linux graphics stack have already said that they won't be supporting Mir upstream any time soon. At this point, I'd be more surprised of hearing a project supporting Mir than the other way around.

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

#35

Post by bad_user »

damien wrote: post #27
mayhew wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yep, all of their technical reasons have pretty much been debunked. The reason for Mir's existence is mainly about project control. As Matthew Garrett mentions[1], they likely need that control for Ubuntu Phone to be able to relicense the code to keep their hardware partners happy. [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html

This is why I think licenses such as AGPL and GPLv3 are hurting open-source (and Free Software). The intentions behind them are good, but in practice they are used in parallel with commercial licenses that have nothing to do with open-source.

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

#36

Post by barrkel »

krschultz wrote: post #9
slurry wrote: 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…

When a company starts supporting something in public, it usually ends up amounting to a kind of commitment - such that reneging on the commitment has costs, in reputation if nothing else.

In other words, the cost of this patch is not just this immediate code, but ongoing maintenance and support of further features. Almost certainly the guy who pushed the patch doesn't have permission to enter Intel into this kind of commitment.

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

#37

Post by Tuna-Fish »

Havoc wrote: post #29

Why would any party make such a hostile announcement in the FOSS scene? I'm not all that involved in that scene, but surely this approach is counter-productive? Especially if you can't back it with a sound technical reason.

> Why would any party make such a hostile announcement in the FOSS scene? I'm not all that involved in that scene, but surely this approach is counter-productive?

Something like this is actually quite common, and more or less necessary.

In proprietary software development, there is typically some hierarchical authority that makes design decisions. You might debate for a while, but eventually someone is going to come up with a decision of how things are going to be done. In FOSS, no such central authority exists, so design of inter-related projects is effectively a distributed negotiation. Usually, things are done amicably, everyone is happy to share each other's code, and disputes are handled peacefully. However, every now and then there is a situation where two entities simply cannot agree, and one of them has to put the foot down and say: "No, this is a bad idea, we won't spend the effort helping you do this. If you want it, do it yourself."

And since it's all a very public negotiation, making this kind of announcement is just one step up the ladder of escalation from a private email declining a patch. As flames go, it's rather tame. :)

> Especially if you can't back it with a sound technical reason.

Intel absolutely can, and has, for hundreds of times over the past few months. At some time you just have to give up on trying to convince the other people and do something useful.

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

#38

Post by aristidb »

Havoc wrote: post #29

Why would any party make such a hostile announcement in the FOSS scene? I'm not all that involved in that scene, but surely this approach is counter-productive? Especially if you can't back it with a sound technical reason.

It's not as if Canonical's approach was exactly uncontroversial either. My reaction to the Mir announcement was not exactly that I was overwhelmed by warm fuzzies, to put it that way, because I think they should collaborate on Wayland rather than doing their own thing for something as central as the display server.

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

#39

Post by bkor »

bad_user wrote: post #35
damien wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, all of their technical reasons have pretty much been debunked. The reason for Mir's existence is mainly about project control. As Matthew Garrett mentions[1], they likely need that control for Ubuntu Phone to be able to relicense the code to keep their hardware partners happy. [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html

This is why I think licenses such as AGPL and GPLv3 are hurting open-source (and Free Software). The intentions behind them are good, but in practice they are used in parallel with commercial licenses that have nothing to do with open-source.

Wayland is not under such licences. It uses the MIT license.

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

#40

Post by bkor »

tinco wrote: 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.

The reason for starting Mir is still unclear to me. The is a very real cost of maintaining Mir. If you're not Canonical, why would you spend money, time and complexity for an unclear benefit? Better have it stay Canonical-only.
Post reply on HN