The politics involved is pretty ridiculous, and I can understand why a company wants to just play the lone ranger role.
Why should these upstream projects have the maintenance burden (for something that is Ubuntu-centric), when most of them are working towards a Wayland-centric, standardized stack across Gnu/linux? (which canonical is interfering with). ~ Upstream should just continue in the direction they are going (Wayland) and let Canonical deal with their own problems.
Lots of companies maintain patchsets out of tree, when their goals aren't inline with upstream or incompatible to some degree. I don't see any reason for Canonical to be any different.
When they outsource tech support to the community (forums), it's OK. When the community wants to have a say, it's not.Just because you may not get what you want is no basis for divisive leadership
And other projects shouldn't take any patch in. It adds complexity and maintenance. Imagine having to support half a dozen display servers.
Example: If a create a new type of executable incompatible with Linux. Should the Linux kernel just take my patch to support my executable?
If nVidia produces an EGL *certified* driver (ie: using the EGL specification) then Wayland should work just fine. It does not matter that Canonical may be using additional (EGL) extensions that Wayland is not. (since Wayland doesn't need those anyway).
again, you didn't understand thomas' blog, you also don't seem to grasp what i am saying about EGL and specifications and are continuing to spread FUD.
use your brain dude.
Last edited by ninez; 03-07-2013 at 12:16 PM.
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if free software was the norm, not the exception?
But how are we going to get there?
If it is by selling our core values, then is it really worth it?
I don't want Linux with adware, spyware, EULA, DRM, proprietary software, proprietary protocols, binary blobs, bundled software, browser toolbars, software that modify browser start page, backdoors, etc.
Don't forget about transparency.