Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Ubuntu Touch/Tablet Is Using SurfaceFlinger

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Radeon is fairly well supported by the open drivers (excluding RadeonSI), but I'm just nitpicking.
    It handles 3D fairly well. Thats about it. Besides being completely unusable on laptops, it is so far from feature complete it is not even funny.

    Everything else, I completely agree.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Figueiredo View Post
    It's funny how people in these forums start to moan and complain about things that are only in their own heads.

    According to this post ubuntu touch *does not use bionic*, it uses libhybris which allows the use of android drivers with glibc.

    So ubuntu touch is not that much of android, but not that much of GNU either, it is its own thing. With regard to the push for SurfaceFlinger on the desktop, we will have to wait and see. But the desktop and touch interfaces will most probably remain very different beasts for quite some time. Since X is all the desktop blobs support right now.

    Before moaning about whatever display server canonical might be pushing, remember this one thing: *it must be supported by the blobs*. The only GPU more or less well supported by open drivers is intel's. All the other ARM SoCs or desktop GPUs require blobs, end of story. Consumers mostly buy notebooks, which should not melt when ubuntu is installed.

    Either ubuntu gets big enough so that canonical can convince GPU makers to write drivers for their own display server, or they are bound to use the display servers (or a fork thereof) that is already supported by GPU makers.

    That said, I do believe it would be easier to convince AMD/nVidia to support SurfaceFlinger than to convince *everyone* to support wayland (how are they so much different anyway?). If someone else does that or manages to write good open drivers for every GPU under the sun, then I'm sure canonical would reconsider.

    But the Wayland protocol doesn't care about drivers. It's a protocol, that all the major toolkits have started to port to. This isn't Xorg, with user space drivers. Weston currently can run in an x server, under video cards that support KMS and DRM, or under a Framebuffer. Drivers aren't the issue. A developer even got Weston to run on Android a while back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrYxEMXF6g

    From my understanding the basic ideas SurfaceFlinger uses similar ideas to Wayland, but it uses different APIs, and I don't know how much the protocol SurfaceFlinger would allow expansion for adding desktop things to its protocol.


    Because Ubuntu is pushing Android's SurfaceFlinger, unless they add support for the Wayland protocol into SurfaceFlinger somehow, supporting both protocols, they could be causing fragmentation, because everyone else is porting to the Wayland protocol.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shmerl View Post
    Disappointing, since it means they won't put any effort in advancing Wayland on mobile.
    I would not worry about it. I expect Ubuntu to be as collaborative in the Android ecosystem as they have in Linux.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    The last thing I want is to see a webpage offering users a downloadable package that says "Download Application XYZ for a) X, b) Wayland, c) SurfaceFlinger".
    I doubt this is needed. Apparently apps(their toolkits basically) can be made to choose an appropriate backend for either Wayland or X at runtime. So I don't see a reason why this can't happen with SurfaceFlinger as well.
    Still, I'd rather Wayland to dominate, I believe it will be better. Time will tell.

    ***************************

    Also, I read in previous post(s) something along the lines that apps needing to be ported to a new display server is as much of an issue for SurcaFlinger as it is for Wayland. This is not true(except for the fact that the most important toolkits are already bettering Wayland support), since XWayland already exists. While barely usable now, it should be much better soon. Heck, I've watched youtube videos on FireFox running on top of XWayland, running on top of Weston, running on top of Wayland, running on top of X, running on top of Catalyst driver(!!!).
    It went fairly well actually.
    More things than people think are apparently possible. Basically Wayland can even be run on top of proprietary drivers as of now, but in a "crude" and far from ideal way..

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    342

    Default

    How much do it differ from regular android besides the frontend, according to the article it sounds like it basically cyanogenmod. What is the advantage over regular android. Is the sound system also android?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nerdopolis View Post
    But the Wayland protocol doesn't care about drivers. It's a protocol, that all the major toolkits have started to port to. This isn't Xorg, with user space drivers. Weston currently can run in an x server, under video cards that support KMS and DRM, or under a Framebuffer. Drivers aren't the issue. A developer even got Weston to run on Android a while back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrYxEMXF6g

    From my understanding the basic ideas SurfaceFlinger uses similar ideas to Wayland, but it uses different APIs, and I don't know how much the protocol SurfaceFlinger would allow expansion for adding desktop things to its protocol.


    Because Ubuntu is pushing Android's SurfaceFlinger, unless they add support for the Wayland protocol into SurfaceFlinger somehow, supporting both protocols, they could be causing fragmentation, because everyone else is porting to the Wayland protocol.
    I am no expert, so feel free to correct me, but doesn't wayland require KMS and DRM, which the blobs lack? So wouldn't the blobs need to implement said features in order to support the wayland protocol? Wouldn't the SoC's libs have to include support for the wayland protocol?

    AFAIK wayland is only usable right now with open drivers, which kinda makes sense since this is an Intel project afterall, and Intel is the only one truly supporting open drivers.

    It may be fine for geeky distros such as arch and gentoo to impose such limitations on users, but if a distro is to be mainstream, it *must* simply work.

    Also, maybe canonical is planning on including something on the lines of XWayland onto SurfaceFlinger, to be able to run X applications on top of it. I guess we can only wait and see.
    Last edited by Figueiredo; 02-22-2013 at 08:21 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Figueiredo View Post
    I am no expert, so feel free to correct me, but doesn't wayland require KMS and DRM, which the blobs lack? So wouldn't the blobs need to implement said features in order to support the wayland protocol? Wouldn't the SoC's libs have to include support for the wayland protocol?

    AFAIK wayland is only usable right now with open drivers, which kinda makes sense since this is an Intel project afterall, and Intel is the only one truly supporting open drivers.

    It may be fine for geeky distros such as arch and gentoo to impose such limitations on users, but if a distro is to be mainstream, it *must* simply work.
    I think it already exist closed source driver for wayland for the raspberryPi?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Figueiredo View Post
    I am no expert, so feel free to correct me, but doesn't wayland require KMS and DRM, which the blobs lack? So wouldn't the blobs need to implement said features in order to support the wayland protocol? Wouldn't the SoC's libs have to include support for the wayland protocol?
    I can tell you that Wayland doesn't require KMS, but Weston does(not sure if Weston truly NEEDS it to run though).

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    How optimistic.

    I was thinking 5 - 7 years.
    You forgot the Intel factor.
    https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-.../msg00119.html

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnebdal View Post
    Is there anything objectively wrong with SurfaceFlinger, or is it just that you don't happen to like the project it's from?
    The point is Linux desktop will be even more divided.

Posting Permissions

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