Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    They also have actually useful patches, that would also work with upstream goals, that they just haven't bothered to even submit.

    For example their kernel patches for async isapnp and async initrd extraction. Both have been shipping in Ubuntu for several years now, and have been submitted upstream exactly zero times that I know of. Especially the latter would be widely useful.
    Hmm, couldn't users submit those themselves? Or is it that only authors of the patches have the ability to do so?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      They also have actually useful patches, that would also work with upstream goals, that they just haven't bothered to even submit.
      I didn't dispute that, i said in 'many cases', not Ubutnu doesn't produce a single good patch.

      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      For example their kernel patches for async isapnp and async initrd extraction. Both have been shipping in Ubuntu for several years now, and have been submitted upstream exactly zero times that I know of. Especially the latter would be widely useful.
      I wonder why they have not bothered, then? (in this particular case). It's not like those are 'deal-makers/breakers' or offer Ubuntu some huge advantage (or even minor) over XYZ distro.

      Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
      Ubuntu has incredible level of polish. Almost everything works out of the box and w/o bugs. Why the hell should end-user give a fuck about GNU/Linux crap? Come on.
      That's pretty funny, maybe you should go to launchpad and actually look at some of the bugs that affect ubuntu... without bugs? (YA RIGHT!). ...what was it, maybe a week ago - i posted a video showing 'the nvidia blank window bug' that was a regression in compiz (and thus unity) that bug has been around since 11.04 with no solution in sight... I wouldn't call windows appearing on the screen incorrectly, 'polished'. ~ but this is just one example (but a good one too, since Canonical is developing compiz / unity).

      You also went on to say, that fedora would fail to boot (and for some reason you think Ubuntu doesn't have this issue?), yet google produces many many links when searching 'ubuntu 12.10 fails to boot', some issues have been fixed, others not.

      from what i have observed, Ubuntu/Canonical is better at marketing than anything else. They aren't heavy contributors to many FOSS projects (which they rely on).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        They also have actually useful patches, that would also work with upstream goals, that they just haven't bothered to even submit.

        For example their kernel patches for async isapnp and async initrd extraction. Both have been shipping in Ubuntu for several years now, and have been submitted upstream exactly zero times that I know of. Especially the latter would be widely useful.
        If upstream wanted them why wait for Ubuntu to submit? The source code is out there, go get them and implement them. Why does it have to be a one way street? Isn't that the whole point of the GPL?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by locovaca View Post
          If upstream wanted them why wait for Ubuntu to submit? The source code is out there, go get them and implement them. Why does it have to be a one way street? Isn't that the whole point of the GPL?
          that does beg the question, doesn't it?

          Comment


          • #35
            That's pretty funny, maybe you should go to launchpad and actually look at some of the bugs that affect ubuntu... without bugs? (YA RIGHT!). ...what was it, maybe a week ago - i posted a video showing 'the nvidia blank window bug' that was a regression in compiz (and thus unity) that bug has been around since 11.04 with no solution in sight... I wouldn't call windows appearing on the screen incorrectly, 'polished'. ~ but this is just one example (but a good one too, since Canonical is developing compiz / unity).

            You also went on to say, that fedora would fail to boot (and for some reason you think Ubuntu doesn't have this issue?), yet google produces many many links when searching 'ubuntu 12.10 fails to boot', some issues have been fixed, others not.

            On absolute majority of hardware Ubuntu boots fast and works out of the box. In my book, Ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks. Sorry

            from what i have observed, Ubuntu/Canonical is better at marketing than anything else. They aren't heavy contributors to many FOSS projects (which they rely on).
            Only basement dwellers give a fuck about that.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
              On absolute majority of hardware Ubuntu boots fast and works out of the box. In my book, Ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks. Sorry
              Ubuntu boots significantly slower than any system using systemd (when properly configured). Not sure where you get this idea that Ubuntu boots fast (it doesn't). I also don't get why you are saying sorry because ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks? (personally, i could care less about that). I should also point out, that the majority of distros boot on the majority of hardware ~ Ubuntu doesn't have some 'big advantage' here...

              Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
              Only basement dwellers give a fuck about that.
              I don't even have a basement. nice try though... And you are wrong (and have an overly simplistic outlook on the situation, which means to me, that your opinions really don't mean anything, since you obviously don't have a clue as to what yoiu are talking about...sorry). You know whom cares about that? - the people whom develop the software that Ubuntu relies on (which Canonical essentially presents as 'their ecosystem'). Hypothetically, if we flipped the coin here, linux didn't exist and you were stuck with Windows/Mac, you would give a shit if Microsoft/Apple wasn't improving their software stack themselves, but instead relying almost completely on 3rd-parties for the core components of their OS and then just 'papering over' bugs with crappy patches :\
              Last edited by ninez; 12-18-2012, 07:20 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ninez View Post
                Ubuntu boots significantly slower than any system using systemd (when properly configured). Not sure where you get this idea that Ubuntu boots fast (it doesn't). I also don't get why you are saying sorry because ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks? (personally, i could care less about that). I should also point out, that the majority of distros boot on the majority of hardware ~ Ubuntu doesn't have some 'big advantage' here...
                Oh, it does, believe me. And systemd is some new experimental shit that belongs to alpha testing polygons like Fedora, not established distros like Ubuntu.

                I don't even have a basement. nice try though... And you are wrong (and have an overly simplistic outlook on the situation, which means to me, that your opinions really don't mean anything, since you obviously don't have a clue as to what yoiu are talking about...sorry). You know whom cares about that? - the people whom develop the software that Ubuntu relies on (which Canonical essentially presents as 'their ecosystem'). Hypothetically, if we flipped the coin here, linux didn't exist and you were stuck with Windows/Mac, you would give a shit if Microsoft/Apple wasn't improving their software stack themselves, but instead relying almost completely on 3rd-parties for the core components of their OS and then just 'papering over' bugs with crappy patches :\
                Oh yeah, you are a Mr. Know All. What an ignorant motherfucker.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                  Oh, it does, believe me. And systemd is some new experimental shit that belongs to alpha testing polygons like Fedora, not established distros like Ubuntu.
                  I've been using systemd for almost a year - ZERO problems. Several distributions are now using it by default (oh yeah, so fricking 'experimental'). You don't have a clue bud! Fedora not an established distro ~ LOLOLOLOLz. I don't used it, but either you are incorrectly using the word 'established' or you just don't have a clue at all. It sounds to me like you are just a fanboy, more than anything.

                  and i don't have to believe you - i've tested sysv, upstart, and systemd ~ hands down, systemd is much faster.

                  Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                  Oh yeah, you are a Mr. Know All. What an ignorant motherfucker.
                  interesting how your comments don't actually address any point that i was actually making (why am i not surprised). and fyi, if you are going to call someone ignorant - you better be prepared to explain exactly what makes them ignorant...

                  because from where i am sitting, it is actually you whom is ignorant by definition (since that is exactly what your comments reflect. sorry about your luck).
                  Last edited by ninez; 12-18-2012, 07:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ninez View Post
                    I've been using systemd for almost a year - ZERO problems. Several distributions are now using it by default (oh yeah, so fricking 'experimental'). You don't have a clue bud! Fedora not an established distro ~ LOLOLOLOLz. I don't used it, but either you are incorrectly using the word 'established' or you just don't have a clue at all. It sounds to me like you are just a fanboy, more than anything.

                    and i don't have to believe you - i've tested sysv, upstart, and systemd ~ hands down, systemd is much faster.
                    And I don't have to believe you either. From my experience, Fedora and openSUSE are two pieces of crap that fail to work out of the box correctly. Unlike Ubuntu which always rocks right from the start.

                    interesting how your comments don't actually address any point that i was actually making (why am i not surprised). and fyi, if you are going to call someone ignorant - you better be prepared to explain exactly what makes them ignorant...

                    because from where i am sitting, it is actually you whom is ignorant by definition (since that is exactly what your comments reflect. sorry about your luck).
                    It's interesting how you are a militant opensourcist, be it attacking NVIDIA for providing proper drivers or Ubuntu for being more successful than Red Hat's stuff. Sorry, but you are a fanboy and a crying bitch.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                      And I don't have to believe you either. From my experience, Fedora and openSUSE are two pieces of crap that fail to work out of the box correctly. Unlike Ubuntu which always rocks right from the start.
                      You're right, you don't have to believe me. but on any system i have used, or any system anyone else i know has used - systemd boots in a fraction of the time of upstart or sysv. i also could care less if you think opensuse or fedora is crap (since i use neither, that has ZERO relevance - ie: i was never making an argument 'for' Fedora or Suse vs. Ubuntu - did you think i was or something?!? wtf?).

                      Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                      It's interesting how you are a militant opensourcist, be it attacking NVIDIA for providing proper drivers or Ubuntu for being more successful than Red Hat's stuff. Sorry, but you are a fanboy and a crying bitch.
                      It's interesting how you are either a complete moron, or have me mixed up with someone else, entirely. (or both)

                      1. Militant opensourcist? - fuck no. I am very pragmatic and use lots of proprietary applications; everything from splashtop to VMware, Lightworks to other platforms such as MacOSX (including adobe CS5 and many closed-cource proaudio apps). Where you get this idea i am an only opensource guy is beyond me (and makes your notions deserving of ridicule) ~ again, you don't have a frickin' clue as to what you are talking about (at all!). I use the best tools for the job, it does not matter to me, if they are opensource or proprietary... it is nice when they are OSS - because then, if i need to, i can modify them. Yes, i do like OSS - but that doesn't make me a fanboy (if that was what you were implying?) since, in reality, there are very _practical_ reasons to like OSS over proprietary apps.

                      2. Attacking Nvidia ~ dumbass, I USE nvidia cards in every machine that i own (except one, that i rarely use / laptop), including my Mac and also ALL of my linux machines.. which as a matter of fact ALL are using Nvidia binary driver (latest beta) - you couldn't pay me to use any of the OSS drivers vs. using nvidia blob. ...and to my knowledge i have never 'attacked' nvidia, since i am generally a happy customer and continue to buy their products (as well as recommending them, particularly for linux users whom want good GFX).

                      3. As far as redhat is concerned, i am *indifferent* to them. Yes, I use CentOS on a few servers at work (Ubuntu server sucked at the time - we tested it out) but i would NEVER use Fedora or Ubuntu on one of my desktops. So your notion that i am (potentially) a redhat fanboy is a bunch of BS. Even our choice to use CentOS at work, was not mine alone and we gave Ubuntu it's fair stake in possibly replacing our linux infrastructure at the time ~ it failed where RHEL / CentOS succeeded... but it still doesn't change the fact that i am indifferent.

                      So tell me, how exactly did you come to these conclusions about me?? (that have *all* turned out to be entirely incorrect *in every possible way!*) I guess you like to just make shit up about people, but aren't smart enough to realize they can easily set the record straight...

                      ...and again, you didn't address any of my points
                      Last edited by ninez; 12-18-2012, 08:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                        In my book, Ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks. Sorry
                        If anything, the only distro suitable for non-geeks is Mageia. But this has gone beyond off-topic...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          If anything, the only distro suitable for non-geeks is Mageia. But this has gone beyond off-topic...
                          indeed, it has swung waaay off-topic....

                          ...so the real question is does Magiea offer gtk+ with wayland support, unlike ubuntu?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                            Hmm, couldn't users submit those themselves? Or is it that only authors of the patches have the ability to do so?
                            Yes, users could. It's merely the fact the kernel is not exactly an inviting environment to submit one's first patch, kind of like X. What would an user do if he can't code, and the patch comes back with "fix X, Y and Z"?

                            The author of the patch is in the best position to submit it.

                            I wonder why they have not bothered, then? (in this particular case). It's not like those are 'deal-makers/breakers' or offer Ubuntu some huge advantage (or even minor) over XYZ distro.
                            I don't know any better than you. My best guess is the general lack of doing that in Ubuntu - "if we don't do that for anything else, why bother for these".
                            The patches mentioned do offer an advantage, from few hundred ms to a second or two faster boot time, depending on hw and initrd size.

                            If upstream wanted them why wait for Ubuntu to submit? The source code is out there, go get them and implement them. Why does it have to be a one way street? Isn't that the whole point of the GPL?
                            Yes, the source is out there, and personally I've been using for long now.

                            But if you're asking why this doesn't happen in general (upstream going around checking forks if they have useful code), it's usually lack of time and interest.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ninez View Post
                              indeed, it has swung waaay off-topic....

                              ...so the real question is does Magiea offer gtk+ with wayland support, unlike ubuntu?
                              It's actually a good question. Mageia is usually more conservative when it comes to defaults, but they also tend to have a lot of options if one chooses to tweak them. For instance, I installed it on one netbook just because it's pretty much the only distro I know of that has good Razor-Qt support. So I wouldn't be surprised if they set the Wayland flag on as well.

                              Originally posted by curaga View Post
                              Yes, users could. It's merely the fact the kernel is not exactly an inviting environment to submit one's first patch, kind of like X. What would an user do if he can't code, and the patch comes back with "fix X, Y and Z"?

                              The author of the patch is in the best position to submit it.
                              Yea, that's true. Or the kernel maintainers can do that themselves, although I suppose that going through Ubuntu's patches is not the first idea that pops into mind when trying to deal with an issue...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The title of this article is wrong: 'Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu'

                                It didn't get marked "Won't Fix" for all of Ubuntu, as the title says, it got marked "Won't Fix" only for the upcoming Raring release. If you look at the linked bug, its status is still "Confirmed" for Ubuntu.

                                I opened the bug. Ubuntu's request that the Wayland backend for GTK to be split out to a dynamic library before being included in one of their releases doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me. I just wish they mentioned it six months ago, last time they said they wouldn't include it in a release.

                                Can't include this in Precise because it's a stable release....
                                Can't include this in Quantal because it's too late in the release cycle, even though the bug was open before the Precise release....
                                Can't include this in Raring because it would cause the GTK package to depend on a Wayland package....

                                This is getting old.

                                Originally posted by brent View Post
                                I don't see any problem with the decision at this time. Wayland is not mature or ready for general consumption in any way, so why should they ship GTK with Wayland support? The very few users that like to experiment with Wayland just need to compile/install a Wayland-capable build of GTK. No big deal.
                                Because shipping GTK with Wayland support will make it a lot easier for a lot more people to test, making it easier to make Wayland more mature and ready for general consumption. I think the process has already provided very useful testing which has found problems I think other distros would agree should be fixed.

                                I wrote two different build scripts, and most of the Wayland build instructions, to make compiling from source as easy as possible, and increase testing. I still think it's a pain that far fewer people are willing to go through than those who will install a binary package from a default archive.

                                [I switched from Ubuntu to Debian because of Ubuntu's Amazon ads.]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X