Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Sep 2010 22:42 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu If there's one consistent piece of criticism that gets lobbed in Canonical's and Mark Shuttleworth's direction, it's that they do not contribute enough code - or anything else for that matter - to the Free software world. Mark Shuttleworth has apparently had enough, and has written a very, very lengthy blog post detailing how he feels about this criticism.
Thread beginning with comment 441307
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: duh
by Fettarme H-Milch on Thu 16th Sep 2010 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: duh"
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:
2010-02-16

X.org, definitely. But I think Mesa is actually doing pretty well.

If it was so well, where is OpenGL 3.x support? I'm not even beginning to ask for 4.0.

Btw: While both are technically separate projects, they pretty much go hand in hand for 3D-accelerated GPU drivers.
Xorg's GPU drivers can't support higher versions of OpenGL than Mesa offers. And Mesa is f*cked when drivers incorrectly claim to properly support feature X of OpenGL 2.x.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: duh
by Zifre on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:46 in reply to "RE[3]: duh"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

If it was so well, where is OpenGL 3.x support? I'm not even beginning to ask for 4.0.

First of all, why do you need 3.0? Of course it's nice to have, but certain things are more important. Here is Mesa's progress toward 3.0: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/plain/docs/GL3.txt. A large portion is already done. And not all of those features are terribly useful. I might rather see them work on performance or Gallium then specific OpenGL features. And almost nothing uses 3.0 right now anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

Xorg's GPU drivers can't support higher versions of OpenGL than Mesa offers.

That doesn't make sense. X.org drivers implement things like EXA and other 2D stuff. They do not rely on Mesa at all. Mesa does all the 3D, and it has almost no dependencies on X (as demonstrated by Wayland).

Of course both projects would be better off with more developers, but I think Mesa is doing better than X.org right now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: duh
by Fettarme H-Milch on Thu 16th Sep 2010 23:46 in reply to "RE[4]: duh"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

why do you need 3.0?

Easier portability across platforms.


Of course it's nice to have, but certain things are more important.

Sure there are. Solving world hunger is more important. Abolishing patents on life-saving medicine is more important to help the 3rd world against the epidemics they suffer.


Here is Mesa's progress toward 3.0

Great!

X.org drivers implement things like EXA and other 2D stuff. They do not rely on Mesa at all. Mesa does all the 3D

I don't want to go into the specifics which project does what exactly.
FOSS GPU drivers for 3D acceleration rely on both projects which is exactly the reason I mentioned both as one phrase ("Xorg/Mesa").

If Canonical wants to pride itself as contributing member of the FOSS comunity, Canonical's work could IMO most be needed in Xorg/Mesa.

Reply Parent Score: 2