Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
What is the point of developing software if it makes no difference?
The reason that there is no functional difference between this setup and a regular X11 setup is that KWin can't yet run as a Wayland compositor, because this support is a work in progress. The main difference from a technical standpoint is that X11 is not running as the root display server - KWin is running as a Wayland client rather than an X client. Weston, the reference Wayland server implementation, is being used as the system compositor and the root display server.
When KWin does get support for running as a Wayland compositor, there will be a real difference. Applications that can run as Wayland clients then be able to do so, and X11 clients will be handled using XWayland.
There is a reason why A/C is much less popular in Europe than in the States: It's simply not as useful if the house stays cool on its own if you lower the blinds and only open the windows briefly to let in fresh air.
There is a reason why A/C is less popular in Europe than in the States, but it's not that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any part of Europe that regularly gets temperatures upwards of 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) on several days of every summer. Much of the southern United States does, and that's why A/C is a necessity there. Just changing the building material won't cut it, even if it does improve the cooling situation.
Because contrary to what many people think, Genesis 1 is not meant as scientific documentation. Think of the time it was compiled, which seems to be widely accepted as around the 5th or 6th century BC at the latest. The average person then had no concept of "a period of time about which we humans have no possible knowledge, so it's not even worth mentioning", whereas a "day" is an easy concept to understand even if it is not technically accurate. It was compiled with this audience in mind.
The people who take every word of Genesis literally as if it were written for 21st century readers are called "fundamentalists", and are rightfullly ridiculed by most other Christians and all non-Christians. They're well-represented in American politics, though, because extremism is a hallmark of our political system.
Got a reference for us that isn't out of date, and which explains how Clover is independent of Mesa and Gallium3D?
I never said it was independent of Gallium - it's not. Gallium, however, is a general-purpose API for GPU libraries that is independent of OS or any particular GPU hardware, and has LLVMpipe as a working and fast software backend for machines without a GPU.
As for being independent of Mesa, Clover has never been dependent on Mesa. It just lives within the Mesa repository, because almost all GPU-related code in userspace lives in the Mesa repository. Clover and all other Gallium state trackers (with the obvious exception of the Mesa state tracker) have no dependency on core Mesa or OpenGL, and never have.
I follow Mesa and Gallium development closely and have made (and am currently making) some non-trivial contributions, so I would consider myself a fairly credible primary source here. Certainly more credible than the Wikipedia page which makes LLVMpipe look like it's still in an experimental stage (it's been stable for years now) and has a list of arbitrary "milestones" that hasn't been updated in the last year and a half.
The performance of the AMD Gallium driver is not because of Gallium - it's because of manpower. There are 2-3 paid full-time developers on the entire open source AMD graphics stack. Catalyst has easily 50 times that investment - it's only natural that it's faster and better optimized than the open source driver. On the contrary, as you can see from a few benchmarks on Phoronix and elsewhere, if an Nvidia card is reclocked properly to get around Nouveau's current lack of good power management, the performance of the nv50 and nvc0 Gallium drivers are quite competitive with Nvidia's own proprietary driver running at the same power level.
The lack of a quality OpenCL implementation also has nothing to do with Gallium and everything to do with the minimal developer interest in Clover. If someone cared enough to take an interest in Clover and actively develop it, it would work much better. Clover is still farther along than Beignet, though.
* Clover has been merged to Mesa since that Phoronix article was published.
* Mesa is indeed the name of the OpenGL implementation, but the larger Mesa project contains all of Gallium and its state trackers as well. That's what's being referred to here, not the OpenGL implementation specifically.
* Wikipedia's description of Gallium isn't necessarily wrong, but it's also not the greatest. First of all, there are two working software drivers for Gallium in addition to the hardware drivers - the reference driver softpipe and the fast/practical LLVMpipe. And by "a free software library for 3D graphics device drivers", what Wikipedia really means (or what it should mean, anyway) is that Gallium is a common framework for implementing libraries that communicate with the GPU (OpenGL, OpenCL, OpenVG, VDPAU, etc.) across a wide range of hardware as well as the aforementioned software drivers.
What it comes down to is that Clover is Gallium-based, but Gallium is not exclusively for "graphics". It's for anything that uses the GPU, including GPGPU libraries like OpenCL, and has no dependency on anything graphics or display-related.
This has nothing to do with Gallium 3D or Mesa which are 3D graphics related. The only similarity is that some of the targets happens to be GPU. The person has no clue what the hell he was talking about. May be he is confused it with OpenGL!?
This is AMD's answer to CUDA.
No, you're quite wrong and he's entirely right. This has everything to do with Gallium and Mesa. Despite it sometimes being called "Gallium3D", Gallium is not just for graphics. It also supports GPU compute, specifically OpenCL, through the Clover state tracker.
You must not recognize the name of Dave Airlie - among other things, he's an active Mesa developer, one of the main X.Org developers, and the maintainer of the Direct Rendering Manager in the Linux kernel; i.e., he is the person who submits the pull requests to Linus for the graphics drivers in the kernel. Not exactly the kind of person who would get confused over the difference between OpenGL and OpenCL, or who has "no clue" what he's talking about.
Dave Airlie is right. There is no good reason for Intel to duplicate all of the work already done on Clover. Of course, Intel hasn't used Gallium for anything before, but their GL drivers have been around since before Gallium drivers became the standard and their video decoding implementation came before there were Gallium state trackers for video decoding.
This, however, just seems like mismanagement to me. Maybe it has to do with this being developed by Intel OTC China instead of Intel OSTC Portland where Intel's Mesa developers are employed, but we now have two frontends that do the same thing.
From the readme in its repository, it seems that Beignet is still far from complete. Hopefully Intel will change its mind and use Clover if it wants OpenCL working on its hardware under Linux.
That's not free software according to the FSF because it is BSD licensed rather than GPL.
That's not true. The BSD license is definitely present in the FSF's list of free software licenses.