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

81–90 of 97 posts

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

#81

Post by sounds »

krschultz wrote: post #55
ealexhudson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ge…

XMir support in intel's driver uses a significant amount of separate code. I'm not saying intel's actions are ok, but XMir is not creating anything more universal.

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

#82

Post by rdc12 »

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…

But the Xmir patches, were not a contributing upstream, in any meaningful sence. It's a we have our own project, here is what you need to make it work, and while your at it can you maintain them too (assumption, based on Canonical culture)

Code dumps (especially when the code is only to support your project(Xmir), rather then improving project(Intel driver) itself) != contributing

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

#83

Post by bad_user »

jlgreco wrote: post #80
bad_user wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Well, I think RMS is wrong. The fact that these licenses cannot be used in certain contexts, such that commercial licensing is justified, does hint to them not being really open.

Here's a quote by Linus Tolvards, when discussing GPLv2 versus GPLv3:

GPLv2 in no way limits your use of the software. If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers.

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

#84

Post by prodigal_erik »

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir/Spec doesn't even consider remoting, and to date Wayland has just punted on it. Is there any way they can both lose? The brief era of only caring about the machine under my desk is coming to an end, and any display system that isn't designed around accommodating latency is going to become a terrible mistake.

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

#85

Post by dingaling »

shuzchen wrote: post #77
general_failure wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Gentoo and Archlinux also appear to have experimental support and plans to switch.

Indeed, but the problem with Wayland is that one can't just 'switch' from X. Wayland provides graphics multiplexing; that's it.

Possibly mangled analogy: it's like saying we're switching from a LAMP stack to Postgres; it doesn't make sense as a statement.

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

#86

Post by bad_user »

streptomycin wrote: post #70
bad_user wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more direct and clear to state the real problem. The real problem isn't the AGPL or the GPLv3, as both of those licenses can be very good in the right context. The real problem is copyright assignment to companies like Canonical, as in practice that is equivalent to dual licensing where the second license is "let this company do whatever the fuck they want".

As I said, the intentions are good, but in practice these licenses are used as an actual incentive for companies to purchase the commercial alternative for redistribution.

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

#87

Post by bratsche »

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…

Don't blame Intel. This driver is theirs to maintain, not Canonical's. If every distro wanted to create their own display server then should it be Intel's responsibility to merge in support code for all those display servers and to maintain all that code?

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

#88

Post by forgottenpass »

tinco wrote: post #79
adamors wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know how github generates that data, but if you page through this:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/log/?qt=author&q...

It paints a very different picture about the distribution of authorship.

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

#89

Post by forgottenpass »

dingaling wrote: post #85
shuzchen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Gentoo and Archlinux also appear to have experimental support and plans to switch. Indeed, but the problem with Wayland is that one can't just 'switch' from X. Wayland provides graphics multiplexing; that's it. Possibly mangled analogy: it's like saying we're switching from a LAMP stack to Postgres; it doesn't make sense as a statement.

>the problem with Wayland is that one can't just 'switch' from X.

Does switching to a wayland compositor by default and using xwayland for the applications that still can't talk to it not sufficiently address that? At least as practically as is possible when replacing a popular piece of interoperable software with a large user install base?

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

#90

Post by belorn »

bad_user wrote: post #83
jlgreco wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Well, I think RMS is wrong. The fact that these licenses cannot be used in certain contexts, such that commercial licensing is justified, does hint to them not being really open. Here's a quote by Linus Tolvards, when discussing GPLv2 versus GPLv3: GPLv2 in no way limits your use of the software. If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on…

> does hint to them not being really open.

And what does "really open" mean?

Software licenses exist to define situation the author can live with, and which ones he would be unhappy about. Some authors:

Do not care at all (WTFLicense).

Demands attributions, and would be unhappy if someone else falsely claim authorship of the authors software (MIT/BSD).

Demands that companies not go and backstab customers and sue them over patents for code they themselves have redistributed (Apache).

Demands the same as all above, but also that users get the source code of the program that they have bought/received. (GPLv2)

Demands the same as all above, but that users can actually use modified version of the source code. (GPLv3)

Demands the same as all above, but adds a clause about users of web services are equivalent to customers who buys software in the store? (AGPL)

So I must then ask, which one is the "really open"? Only WTFlicense? Only BSD/MIT and above?

Post reply on HN