If Android is not a blocker, maybe even then, Jolla, a Finnish company, has been offering a Linux based mobile OS for quite some time. I frankly don't get why other EU companies building the hardware, like Fairphone and Volta, don't partner up with them.
I for one feel like my 15$ spent on Handmade Hero were well served by having access to the source code and the breadth of video that annotates every line of code. I think anyone that looked at he proposition that Casey made as something more than a way to support him, was naive.
Yep, that's me. :) It's cool when blogs incorporate ActivityPub comments to them.
I liked chawan from the first time it was shown here on HN, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44293260. It made me add support for CSS Grid API in my sites targeting text browsers.
Lol, I had to hunt for drivers for a while and then research which ones match my hardware, then I had to research how to strip windows 11 of the more egregious privacy intrusions and nags ... in my case there was plenty of headaches.
As you could see from TFA, getting a reliable reproduction case was the tricky part of fixing this bug, so "asking to prove it's real" is just a mean way of saying asking for reproduction steps, not gaslighting.
I'm currently a participant under a NLNet grant. I'm unemployed at the moment so getting a trickle of 1-2K of donation money per month working on my passion project is a pretty decent proposition.
You can also be a participant alongside your well paid job, because once the memorandum of understanding is signed you have a year to work through the proposal at your own pace, during weekends or moonlighting.
I don't doubt that at all and I'm glad for anyone who is managing to make some money from their open-source contributions, even more so in today's age where market is so volatile. I am being empathetic for that cause. But the point I am rather trying to convey is that this is not the strategy that will converge to something substantial that will make EU more competitive on global landscape.
I don't know how I could convince you, or anyone that's educated under the American capitalist system, that working for a commons is better in aggregate than relying on companies to pay for innovation and then keeping it a secret. "Competitive" is a slur in my opinion, I'd rather my work be "useful".
Working on things that make you happy instead of pushing the agenda of your employers, which in majority is unethical, immoral, or plainly unhealthy, is dystopian? It sounds utopian to me. :)
I think it's a gross omission on the part of whomever wrote the guidelines if discussions about ethics are deemed off topic.
Because many of these events where tech is being used, or abused, in a way that's morally challenging lead to those discussions, and I for one, am very curious why the tech literate crowd of HackerNews is uncomfortable in talking about them, and presents their amorality as "it's against the guidelines".
I mean proprietary API in the sense that the API is solely owned and developed by Mesa. It is not a standardized API, but a custom one specific to their project.
Even today if you use the API your program has to link to Mesa's libgbm.so as opposed to linking to a library provided by the graphics driver like libEGL.so.
OK, leaving aside the fact that "proprietary" has a very well defined meaning in this context and using it makes your comment very charged, you're basically telling us that Nvidia was not willing to implement an API for their drivers, but tried to push for one designed by themselves (you're calling it "vendor neutral", but since Mesa is not an actual GPU vendor it's most likely another subtle mistake on your part that completely changes the meaning of your words) and all the other vendors (Intel and AMD at this point), which have already implemented GBM should switch too in the name of this ?
How can you call all of that a mischaracterization? In my humble opinion, and I am not anything more than a bystander in this with only superficial knowledge of the domain, it's you that is trying to mischaracterize the situation.
>leaving aside the fact that "proprietary" has a very well defined meaning in this context
Yes, it does and it is different the the well defined meaning when talking in regards to the software itself. OpenGL is an open API, but the source code for an implementation isn't necessarily open.
>Nvidia was not willing to implement an API for their drivers
They couldn't because this API is a part of Mesa itself. As I mentioned programs link to a Mesa library directly.
>since Mesa is not an actual GPU vendor
They are a driver vendor.
>the other vendors (Intel and AMD at this point), which have already implemented GBM
Support was added to Mesa itself and not to the driver's by those companies. The proprietary, now deprecated, AMD kernel module still doesn't support GBM.
>should switch too in the name of this
I think it is beneficial for standards to be implemented by multiple vendors, so I think they should implement it at least.
>How can you call all of that a mischaracterization?
What people think as Nvidia needing to implement an API is actually an ask for Nvidia to make a Mesa API work.
From my perception essentially the ask was that Nvidia needed to open source the kernel driver like AMD did and then eventually a nvidia gbm backend would be built into Mesa for it. For obvious reasons this was never going to happen. The fact that no agreeable solution was figured out in about a decade, and then Nvidia has to code up that solution for the Mesa project is a failure on Mesa's end. A lot of user pain happened due due to them not willing to work together with proprietary software and focusing solely on supporting open source drivers.
> For obvious reasons this was never going to happen.
Well, I guess this is the crux of the problem, and for open-source enthusiasts like me this is not obvious at all. What we can surmise is that Nvidia refused to collaborate, therefore they were the party to blame for the status of their video cards not being supported as well as others' vendors on linux.
>What we can surmise is that Nvidia refused to collaborate
I saw more effort on Nvidia's side trying to collaborate than on the Wayland side. I think it's unfair to not call out the people who had a hardline stance of only caring about open source drivers and didn't want to do the work to onboard Nvidia.
In much the same way that NVIDIA may have felt that EGL was the better choice.
However none of your description of the way things are explains why NVIDIA couldn’t have made their own libgbm that matched the symbols of mesa and worked on standardizing the api by de facto.
It may not just be NVIDIA. From what I understand any open source solution is stuck with second rate graphics support on Linux, simply because the groups behind HDMI and other graphics related standards have overly restrictive licensing agreements. Valve ran directly into that while working on its newest console, the AMD drivers for its GPU cannot legally provide full support HDMI 2.1 .
reply