Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: The X.Org, Mesa Plans For Ubuntu 10.10

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sabriah View Post
    "X.Org plans for Ubuntu"

    Hmmmm... Is this just me?

    Why would X.Org plan for Ubuntu, and not Debian, Mint, Fedora, OpenSuse, or any other of the distros?!

    What does Ubuntu have that the others don't?

    According to Mark Shuttleworth Ubuntu is a relabelling of Debian with some changes:

    From September 9th, 2006 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56:



    but on March 15th, 2010 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/290




    Is is just me who think that the X.Org shouldn't focus on a particular distro. And if they do, why not focus on the one that "Ubuntu could not exist without", and let Canonical cherry pick from Debian Squeeze/Sid/Testing/Whatever/whatever like all others.

    This sounds as if Ubuntu is getting X.org to follow Ubuntu's pipe, rather than X.org having an agenda on their own or in collaboration with equals. Maybe this is natural, and maybe this is good, I cannot tell yet. But it sounds strange. The kernel is in such a massive development with so many companies involved I don't think it is an issue there. But if the release plans of X.org follows Ubuntu it sure won't end well.


    .
    EDIT: I realize there may be a simple explanation... Is it about Ubuntu's plans to deploy X.org?!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6

    Default Yup

    Quote Originally Posted by sabriah View Post
    EDIT: I realize there may be a simple explanation... Is it about Ubuntu's plans to deploy X.org?!
    Yup, In this case, the simple explanation is the right one..

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waucka View Post
    Huh? What's wrong with i8xx under KMS?
    Nothing as far as I know. KMS was disabled last minute in Lucid in a hope to work around the cache coherency bugs on these chipsets, but as far as I can see from the bug reports it caused more trouble than it fixed. Many people now boot to a black screen. At least that prevents them from getting as far as experiencing the GPU hangs.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    24

    Default

    "Is it just me who think that the X.Org shouldn't focus on a particular distro. This sounds as if Ubuntu is getting X.org to follow Ubuntu's pipe."

    No, you seem to be on crack. In terms of giving focus to distros, I'm pretty sure X.org has Ubuntu at the back of the bus. There wasn't a single X.org person at UDS this year.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryce Harrington View Post
    "Is it just me who think that the X.Org shouldn't focus on a particular distro. This sounds as if Ubuntu is getting X.org to follow Ubuntu's pipe."

    No, you seem to be on crack. In terms of giving focus to distros, I'm pretty sure X.org has Ubuntu at the back of the bus. There wasn't a single X.org person at UDS this year.
    No Bryce, I wan't on crack, or anything else. I am just paranoid that Canonical would take even more away from their upstream main source, Debian (www.debian.org), apart from the limelight (http://www.google.com/trends?q=debian%2C+ubuntu).

    While the core Debian folks might be a bit orthodox about things, I hope that Canonical can remain ever so tolerant about that. No, I am not a core Debian guy, but I wish to remain an end Debian user for as long as there is an active development, and, I would definitely object to someone pushing a separate agenda on top over Debian's well being.

    My post was an overreaction, and I admit and apologize for that. Sorry.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •