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

51–60 of 97 posts

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

#51

Post by asveikau »

nknighthb wrote: post #48
asveikau wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com... Note "Ordered-by:" line, clearly intended to communicate Chris Wilson was ordered to do this, rather than doing it of his own accord.

You still see no attempt at humor or lightheartedness in this? May I remind you that his email ends in .co.uk, so many people may need to apply a "British humour filter". Most of his commits have "Signed-off-by:" with a name; he replaced "signed-off" with "ordered" and the name with a vague reference to "The Management".

The further context I was thinking of was this:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com...

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

#52

Post by benologist »

The site that plagues Google with shitty search results by scraping Github and other websites and removing source links brings us a summary of yesterday's news via a spam account.

For extra fuckwittery they even nofollow the source links they steal their news from.

Stay classy, Softpedia!

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=hanuca

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6347244

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

#53

Post by jebblue »

It seems there's similarities between Wayland and Mir:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_(software)

"Mir, like Wayland, is built on EGL[6] and utilizes some of the infrastructure originally developed for Wayland[7] such as Mesa’s EGL implementation[6] and Jolla’s libhybris."

So why didn't Canonical just use Wayland, I thought that was their plan forward a couple of years ago?

Whatever they do I hope they don't screw up Ubuntu 12.04's excellent ability to play Steam based games.

EDIT: Read the controversy of the Wiki article, interesting insights.

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

#54

Post by nknighthb »

asveikau wrote: post #51
nknighthb wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com... Note "Ordered-by:" line, clearly intended to communicate Chris Wilson was ordered to do this, rather than doing it of his own accord.

You still see no attempt at humor or lightheartedness in this? May I remind you that his email ends in .co.uk, so many people may need to apply a "British humour filter". Most of his commits have "Signed-off-by:" with a name; he replaced "signed-off" with "ordered" and the name with a vague reference to "The Management". The further context I was thinking of was this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-vide…

I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. No, I see no humor or lightheartedness. Signed-off-by is not just something Chris made up, it's a pseudo-standardized line for git commit messages.

Further context I'm aware of is that Chris explicitly accepted and applied the patch after working with the developers to get it right, along with other signs of cooperation.

Yet more context I'm aware of is much of the political bullshit surrounding Mir, Wayland, Canonical, Red Hat, Intel and really the entire FOSS community at this point.

This isn't a joke. This is Intel's management intervening.

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

#55

Post by krschultz »

ealexhudson wrote: post #12
krschultz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""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. h…

The old classic argument around why Linux doesn't have a rigid internal API comes to mind (http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html). Maybe there are commonalities between supporting Mir and Wayland that would allow Intel to create a more universal piece of software? If Canonical does the work to make the driver universal, wouldn't the whole community benefit?

I'm not a big fan of letting politics get in the way of engineering, and this smells of the fact that Intel is trying to battle ARM in a proxy war, with FOSS as collateral damage.

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

#56

Post by krschultz »

damien wrote: post #25
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.

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

Canonical wrote the initial patches. It stands to reason they will also be fairly heavily involved in maintaining them. That's a fairly thin argument against incorporating patches upstream.

Almost by definition, most of the patches I've committed to upstream are things that I was the first person to care enough about to write a patch. It's nice to see other people use them, but the idea that "why should upstream carry your patch when you are the only one that cares about it" is a bit counter to what has made FOSS get this far. Especially when "only they care about it" still represents one of the largest blocks of users.

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

#57

Post by krschultz »

thomasjames wrote: post #11
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.

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

This is a great comment in that it shows the cognitive dissonance of slamming Canonical for trying to commit upstream while also slamming them for their past lack of upstream commits, in a handy Twitter length package.

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

#58

Post by asveikau »

nknighthb wrote: post #54
asveikau wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still see no attempt at humor or lightheartedness in this? May I remind you that his email ends in .co.uk, so many people may need to apply a "British humour filter". Most of his commits have "Signed-off-by:" with a name; he replaced "signed-off" with "ordered" and the name with a vague reference to "The Management". The further context I was thinking of was this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-vide…

I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. No, I see no humor or lightheartedness. Signed-off-by is not just something Chris made up, it's a pseudo-standardized line for git commit messages. Further context I'm aware of is that Chris explicitly accepted and applied the patch after working with the developers to get it right, along with other signs of cooperation. Yet mo…

> I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits.

Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit. (If your comment tells the whole story I am unconvinced. OK, so the guy merged a patch, then it turns out he did not in fact have the blessing of his employer, so he reverted it with a slightly snarky commit message. Any more context I should be aware of beyond that? It does not sound like a huge conspiracy to me.)

Edit: also, what does "The Management" mean? This guy's immediate supervisor? Intel CEO? I feel like some people are taking an oddly paranoid reading of the situation. I don't know anything about Intel specifically but I have worked at a large company, I am willing to bet that the higher you get in Intel's management the less they care about Ubuntu.

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

#59

Post by chrismsnz »

thomasjames wrote: post #11
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.

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

Given the size and content of the patches under discussion here, I think they'll be fine maintaining that level of Mir integration with the Intel drivers themselves.
Post reply on HN