

Intel: [We] will not carry XMir patches upstream. - mdellabitta
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/commit/?id=58a7611ccfda88c7cbcc62b25b787d6b0fa64081&utm_source=anzwix

======
fingerprinter
It's shit like this why the open source world, Linux in particular, can't have
nice things. Politics, FUD (both ways), egos and petty squabbles making every
step painful and slow.

To everyone involved, fucking grow up.

~~~
general_failure
Yup.

First they say opensource is awesome because you get freedom and you can fork
it to will. They say you can put your ideas to code and do whatever you want.

Then the minute you actually exercise freedom, everyone will say 'why did you
fork it?', 'why not use what's already there'.

At the end of the day, opensource has as much politics and bullshit as
commercial ware. People just don't want to admit it.

~~~
chris_wot
If you fork something, don't expect the original team to accept patches for
increasingly divergent codebases.

There's forking, and then there's unnecessary fragmentation.

------
general_failure
This is not intel's statement. Please edit the heading. If Intel wanted to
make a statement, they would make a article on their website. Just because the
developer feels this way means nothing. In fact, it reflects poorly on Intel.

Chris, if you are reading this, please post a clarification what 'we' means.
Otherwise, people will assume way for nobody's good.

------
jrockway
Where does Intel say this? The patch is from a chris-wilson.co.uk email
address, not intel.com.

~~~
reubenmorais
Chris Wilson works for Intel and is currently the maintainer of the
xf86-video-intel (hint hint) driver project.

~~~
jrockway
What I'm saying is that if Intel wanted to make an official statement, I'd
imagine they'd do it on their website, not via a commit to an open source
project attributed to an employee's personal address.

Since I'm not in the business of manufacturing controversy to gain upvotes or
drive ad clicks, I see this as nothing more "Chris Wilson says he isn't going
to contribute to XMir". If Intel wants to make an official statement, that
will change my mind.

------
shadeslayer
Note that this seems like a purely political reason to not support xmir since
the patch was initially signed off by the maintainer
[http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-
intel/com...](http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-
intel/commit/?id=42d94356f65972eb7fb8991234a4e9388c4c2031)

------
moomin
I suspect the real reason Mir exists is that Canonical felt burnt dealing with
Gnome and wanted control over the display stack as a consequence.

But yeah, pretty much every technical reason they gave was a dud. The only
real selling point as far as I can see is that it's pretty easy to use a
SurfaceFlinger driver with it.

------
kevingadd
Some possibly related background? Not sure, I have no idea what XMir is

[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjY](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjY)

------
brokenparser
So? Fork the driver, it's open source.

~~~
mdellabitta
I think this is notable because Intel as a company is taking this stand
against Canonical. Canonical in the long run is going to need support from the
other two major graphics hardware vendors to make this work well. Having Intel
already come out against it isn't a good start.

~~~
possibilistic
Perhaps Canonical shouldn't have used FUD against Wayland (which is heavily
contributed to by Intel).

~~~
mdellabitta
Just to play devil's advocate, did they spread FUD, or just say it didn't suit
their purposes?

~~~
wtallis
The consensus from many high-profile non-Ubuntu developers was that their
criticisms of Wayland reflected worse on Ubuntu than Wayland. They did say
vaguely that Wayland didn't suit their purposes, but none of the specifics
they provided turned out to be valid, and some of their criticism included
alluding to potential security issues in Wayland that never existed.

