4 ms·

In all likelihood, few other distros will be interested in shipping XMir. Pushing upstream is usually a better thing to do because it helps reduce the maintenan

In all likelihood, few other distros will be interested in shipping XMir. Pushing upstream is usually a better thing to do because it helps reduce the maintenance burden - you're not maintaining a patchset. Intel's decision is basically saying they don't want any of the burden of helping maintain (X)Mir. Canonical/Ubuntu make a rod for their own back every time they settle on these Ubuntu-only solutions imho.

WestCoastJustin 13y ago
I don't really see why Ubuntu is getting bent out of shape about this. Maybe this is just a media/blogger generated grudge. Many very popular open source packages are maintained out of stream before getting pushed upstream. DRBD [1] was a very popular package which, after years of patches, finally got accepted into the kernel. I think there is a burden of proof required before asking someone to maintain your patch set upstream. [1] http://www.drbd.org/ http://www.drbd.org/
- ealexhudson 13y ago
  I'd say it's understandable in this instance - I sympathise because it was initially accepted, and it's not a large patchset. I suspect if there hadn't been the various tech articles about how Intel were accepting XMir, the patchset could have stayed in (supposition, of course).
- ajross 13y ago
  I don't think "Ubuntu" is particularly bent out of shape. Obviously as the authors of these patches they're already maintaining them in their tree already. All distros have long lists of local feature patches they maintain. And X.org/Intel aren't particularly concerned either, all they did is say "no". Patches get rejected every day. This is just the community yammering away over a particularly flameworthy fork. It's a proxy war over the "Why did Ubuntu write Mir?" question. The actual path to upstream for the patches is mostly irrelevant.
- efuquen 13y ago
  I think you're mistaking what is probably largely a political issue for a technical one. The sense I get here is that there is nothing technically wrong with the patch, it's not like Intel went back to Ubuntu and said you have to fix X Y & Z to get this merged. They initially accepted the patch and only after having accepted it on technical grounds they've come back and rejected it because Mir isn't the horse they're backing. If anything I would guess Intel is the one getting bent out of shape here, though I couldn't possibly know for sure due to lack of details.
  - bitwize 13y ago
    Intel is acting in the best interests of the community, which almost unilaterally backs Wayland. Linux is not about choice[0]. It's 2013, and the hard lesson that choice is death to a reliable platform should have been well-learned by now, if by nothing else than by the sheer fact that Apple steamrolled the Unix workstation market into oblivion. Mac OS -- which provides comparatively little choice -- grows YoY, whereas non-Mac desktop Unix, including Linux, has faded into statistical noise. If non-Android Linux is going to claw its way back into relevance, then the community needs to decide on one framework for graphics, one for sound, etc. and back them wholeheartedly. It is a technical issue because focusing all developer effort on one good thing produces better technical results than splintering it among a dozen mediocre things. Apostasy needs to be punished, and that's what Intel has done. [0] http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/m...
    - synchronise 13y ago
      Apostasy needs to be punished, that's 21st century thinking right there.
      - gph 13y ago
        If Linux is ever to become mainsteam the way OSX and Windows are then 'apostasy' needs not be accommodated. Now you can debate whether the philosophy of the Linux and open-source community is for creating a standardized product that can be easily adopted and used by the mainstream user-base. But for companies like Intel, I understand why they want to push it in that direction.

WestCoastJustin 13y ago

I don't really see why Ubuntu is getting bent out of shape about this. Maybe this is just a media/blogger generated grudge. Many very popular open source packages are maintained out of stream before getting pushed upstream. DRBD [1] was a very popular package which, after years of patches, finally got accepted into the kernel. I think there is a burden of proof required before asking someone to maintain your patch set upstream. [1] http://www.drbd.org/ http://www.drbd.org/

ealexhudson 13y ago
I'd say it's understandable in this instance - I sympathise because it was initially accepted, and it's not a large patchset. I suspect if there hadn't been the various tech articles about how Intel were accepting XMir, the patchset could have stayed in (supposition, of course).
ajross 13y ago
I don't think "Ubuntu" is particularly bent out of shape. Obviously as the authors of these patches they're already maintaining them in their tree already. All distros have long lists of local feature patches they maintain. And X.org/Intel aren't particularly concerned either, all they did is say "no". Patches get rejected every day. This is just the community yammering away over a particularly flameworthy fork. It's a proxy war over the "Why did Ubuntu write Mir?" question. The actual path to upstream for the patches is mostly irrelevant.
efuquen 13y ago
I think you're mistaking what is probably largely a political issue for a technical one. The sense I get here is that there is nothing technically wrong with the patch, it's not like Intel went back to Ubuntu and said you have to fix X Y & Z to get this merged. They initially accepted the patch and only after having accepted it on technical grounds they've come back and rejected it because Mir isn't the horse they're backing. If anything I would guess Intel is the one getting bent out of shape here, though I couldn't possibly know for sure due to lack of details.
- bitwize 13y ago
  Intel is acting in the best interests of the community, which almost unilaterally backs Wayland. Linux is not about choice[0]. It's 2013, and the hard lesson that choice is death to a reliable platform should have been well-learned by now, if by nothing else than by the sheer fact that Apple steamrolled the Unix workstation market into oblivion. Mac OS -- which provides comparatively little choice -- grows YoY, whereas non-Mac desktop Unix, including Linux, has faded into statistical noise. If non-Android Linux is going to claw its way back into relevance, then the community needs to decide on one framework for graphics, one for sound, etc. and back them wholeheartedly. It is a technical issue because focusing all developer effort on one good thing produces better technical results than splintering it among a dozen mediocre things. Apostasy needs to be punished, and that's what Intel has done. [0] http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/m...
  - synchronise 13y ago
    Apostasy needs to be punished, that's 21st century thinking right there.
    - gph 13y ago
      If Linux is ever to become mainsteam the way OSX and Windows are then 'apostasy' needs not be accommodated. Now you can debate whether the philosophy of the Linux and open-source community is for creating a standardized product that can be easily adopted and used by the mainstream user-base. But for companies like Intel, I understand why they want to push it in that direction.