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

71–80 of 97 posts

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

#71

Post by asveikau »

nknighthb wrote: post #68
asveikau wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made it sound like you had inside knowledge of Intel's decision making process that is relevant here. If that's the case I think you should disclose it instead of getting mad at me or assuming it is universal knowledge. Our thread from last week is totally unrelated to any of this. I would rather not engage in discussion that is based on personal animosity. Let's stay on topic.

No, I didn't make it sound like that. You are, once again, inventing a strawman, and drawing wild conclusions based on insufficient knowledge. Last week's thread is not unrelated. It shows the same pattern of inane, bad-faith behavior.

So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague, and saying people should lighten up a bit without additional info and perspective, that is acting in bad faith? I am not trying to offend anyone with this commentary, it is my own opinion.

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

#72

Post by ausjke »

I don't know what to say here. I'm still running Ubuntu but the phone-tablet-desktop eat it all strategy got me seriously concerned. Come on, Microsoft can't do that with its deep pocket, neither does Google, you just don't eat more than you can chew, not to mention you have no market share in any of them yet. Focusing on ubuntu server LTS, charging service fees, focusing on cloud platforms, while maintaining a free desktop to keep a wide user base, seems more reasonable to me.

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

#73

Post by nknighthb »

asveikau wrote: post #71
nknighthb wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I didn't make it sound like that. You are, once again, inventing a strawman, and drawing wild conclusions based on insufficient knowledge. Last week's thread is not unrelated. It shows the same pattern of inane, bad-faith behavior.

So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague, and saying people should lighten up a bit without additional info and perspective, that is acting in bad faith? I am not trying to offend anyone with this commentary, it is my own opinion.

> So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague

You didn't say that.

> saying people should lighten up

You didn't say that, either. Which is good, because "lighten up" is not, has never been, and will never be a reasonable thing to say to anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Your original comment wasn't unreasonable. Where you started going off the rails was initially with "May I remind you", which is patronizing.

Then "Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit.", chiding me for failing to magically know that you lacked knowledge that is relatively common within the set of people who care about the subject at hand.

Then you characterized my statements as describing a "huge conspiracy". Being unaware of any "huge conspiracy", only a lot of wide-open politics, this is, to me, at once puzzling and insulting. "oddly paranoid" makes it even worse.

Then you accuse me of pretending to have inside knowledge of Intel, when I did no such thing, and did not intend to, and say I should "disclose" this thing I don't have, as if I'm trying to hide something.

And now you seek to rewrite history.

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

#74

Post by asveikau »

nknighthb wrote: post #73
asveikau wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague, and saying people should lighten up a bit without additional info and perspective, that is acting in bad faith? I am not trying to offend anyone with this commentary, it is my own opinion.

> So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague You didn't say that. > saying people should lighten up You didn't say that, either. Which is good, because "lighten up" is not, has never been, and will never be a reasonable thing to say to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Your original comment wasn't unreasonable. Where you started going off the ra…

I am pretty sure I did say these things. But nevermind. More importantly I don't think I'm guilty of nearly the malice you ascribed to me, and a part of me is wondering where you are based on the off chance we can share a beverage of your choice and you can see I'm not a monster. Is it the thread from last week that has you angry at me?

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

#75

Post by snogglethorpe »

chrismsnz wrote: post #59
thomasjames wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, Intel's actions are more symbolic than anything else.

Ubuntu has received a lot of flack for their aggressively NIH attitude, but being able to point to support for their NIH-motivated products in other widely-used software would signify some amount of acceptance of their actions in the wider community.

I think their are many people who don't want to send that signal.

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

#76

Post by meritt »

benologist wrote: post #52

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

Why don't we simply blacklist Softpedia and other bullshit sites from HN submissions.

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

#77

Post by shuzchen »

general_failure wrote: post #60
chris_wot wrote: post #50

There is one vendor using Mir. One. I don't blame Intel for not backing it.

And there are zero using Wayland. Zero.

Wayland packages have been in Fedora since 18 (it's at 19 now and 20 is to drop in under 3 months time). You can already start testing your apps to see how they work in Wayland, and it's on the roadmap to being integrated as the default. Gentoo and Archlinux also appear to have experimental support and plans to switch.

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

#78

Post by tinco »

tjdetwiler wrote: post #32
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.

Who's saying Canonical hasn't considered this? If this truly reflects the community attitude towards a new open source project than that is an awful thing.

No one is saying it, but Wayland is just a display server, and worse, it's just a display server that's been developed on by just one guy in what is clearly his spare time. For years, and it's still not something we can readily use.

If instead of Canonical this was just a random dude with a kickstarter project, promising that if he built this something new he would get NVidia and AMD in on it we'd all be cheering them on.

We want a replacement for X. Wether it's Wayland or Mir, the community shouldn't care. If both of them grow up to be great display servers, then the projects can have their choice. Why make that choice now, when Mir isn't anything yet, and Wayland looks like an infinite road to nowhere?

So there you have it, a bad comment about Wayland. Why? Because I'm frustrated. X has been a pain in our collective asses for so many years, and the project that was going to change that receives almost no support. It's just this one guy going at it. No vendor support, no distro support. No one wants to touch it, so it takes 5 years to get to this point where it seems like it's almost ready for adoption, but still no one builds a desktop environment for it or any vendor interest.

Then a company just goes for it, allocates significant resources to it, and even uses its connections and leverage to get vendors in on it, and makes sure there's going to be a desktop environment for it. And the whole community just goes 'boo!'? what is that about?

What's the community got to lose? Why is it hurt? What has it invested in wayland?

I'll say it. Nothing. Just some code some dude made that's possibly going to be obsolete if Canonical succeeds. And if not, then Canonical made some obsolete code, which is their business risk, not ours to judge over.

If you ask me, the community should be positive. What have we got to gain? A possible X successor that's got multi-vendor support and a desktop environment that works. It's going to have a nice interface, takes up a lot of design clues from wayland and generally is going to kick ass if it works out.

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

#79

Post by tinco »

adamors wrote: post #14
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.

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.

Oh yeah, all of those Wayland developers:

https://github.com/nobled/wayland/graphs/contributors

I'm not equating Canonical with open source, I'm equating what they're making with open source. Because it is. What are you even talking about?

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

#80

Post by jlgreco »

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.

There is nothing wrong with dual licensing, even RMS has said:

"I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software."

His reasoning is that selling proprietary licenses to otherwise GPL'd code is reasonable since it enables companies to do the same thing that they would be able to do if a project was dual licensed with GPL/MIT. Since he does not consider MIT/X11 style licenses wrong, merely inferior, he concludes that selling GPL exceptions is reasonable:

"When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked myself whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow that the developer that sold the exception is doing something wrong too?

If that implication is valid, it would also apply to releasing the same program under a noncopyleft free software license, such as the X11 license. That also permits such embedding. So either we have to conclude that it's wrong to release anything under the X11 license -- a conclusion I find unacceptably extreme -- or reject this implication. Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it's not wrong."

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

Post reply on HN