Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: GNOME 3.11.2 Has Many Changes

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    The OpenBSD developers have already given up on that, because they know that Gnome's alleged aiming for portability is nothing like a blatant lie:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux....9/focus=187553

    Don't get me wrong, Gnome can be dependent on what they want, I don't care. But they should just stop with the obvious lies about portability and how they are not dependent on systemd. If they don't have the balls to do that they should at least bring those developers back in the line that are actively going into the way of Gnome's self declared goals. They can't have the cake and it eat, but in their case it seems that the cake is a lie.
    The future of GNOME is probably GNOME OS, just like the future of Unity is Ubuntu OS.

    It will be a vertical stack the way Honton likes it, and will lock down the allowed system components, Apple-style, in order to provide you with the right "experience" on your "device". Linux the way we know it will run KDE, XFCE, or some GNOME-based fork.

    This seems to be the new trend in the community, apparently.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    It will be a vertical stack the way Honton likes it, and will lock down the allowed system components, Apple-style, in order to provide you with the right "experience" on your "device". Linux the way we know it will run KDE, XFCE, or some GNOME-based fork.
    I for one would surely welcome a well-integrated and well-tested stack. More functionality and less bugs, yes please. But I find this "locking down" perspective quite strange.
    When the GNOME project stops accepting patches from non-Linux and non-systemd technologies, then I suppose you have a case. Until then you are basically just reinforcing a destructive myth.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Did I say anything about hating Systemd or the way it was developed? No.
    I said I hated their methods to force people to use it. There's a difference. I suggest you learn to read.

    Also, I love how you slipped "Hating Systemd is like hating Linux" in there, like they have anything to do with one another, like the Linux kernel cares which init system you use. I've got a friend who uses an init system they wrote themselves in BASH. They recently had to switch to eudev though, since udev (DESPITE RUNNING JUST FINE) required Systemd to be installed on their computer.
    Odd how a piece of software requires another piece of software that it doesn't seem to call to in any way...
    Are you/they a Gentoo user? Because udev doesn't require systemd to be installed. I'm guessing you're confusing packaging with real requirements. Just because a package might be made dependent on another package in Gentoo, doesn't mean that there is a real requirement.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    They should. Gnome has made it quite obvious they like Systemd and what it provides. Gnome has no love for anything outside of Linux, apparently...
    I have nothing against Systemd as an "init", but I hate their bully-methods to get it on every system.
    Please point me towards and logind alternative. GNOME developed ConsoleKit until systemd made logind available. Since then, only accusations of bullying. But in fact: systemd provides a solution allowing us to maintain less software. We switch, then this is called bullying? Strange world you're living in!

    Anyway, I'm a GNOME release team member and have stated many many times that I really like *BSD and love if GNOME works on *BSD. There is a difference between really liking something and actual development on something. It is a simple fact that almost all development is done by people on Linux. That's been the way for as long as I've been involved. The *BSD contributions are very valuable and very welcome. But if after 10+ years of mostly Linux focused contributions, it is rather unfortunate but still understandable that *BSD might be getting more difficult. Especially in case of trade offs: do I maintain ConsoleKit, or choose this logind that automatically provides various Wayland features.

    In any case, GNOME often depends on dbus interfaces, logind dbus API can be implemented on *BSD. So if you don't want to follow and call this "bullying": oh well, good luck with not helping out while complaining that others are doing things.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    They won't, there's nothing that they could drastically change that would make the system fully dependant on systemd.
    Look at the OpenBSD crew, they managed to port 3.10 over before most distros offered it in their repositories, and without logind support.

    So we'll be seeing Gnome on non-Linux for a while yet
    upower 1.0 removes things that are provided by logind. So other bits in GNOME by supporting upower 1.0 now don't allow for a fallback. Else we'd have to basically implement the removed upower bits ourselves. So on *BSD we might need something which provides a basic logind dbus interface. So doesn't have to be logind, can be under a BSD license. But at the moment there is nothing.

    This was discussed on desktop-devel-list a month back or so. Now wondering if we properly warned distributions+*BSD about this..

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    I for one would surely welcome a well-integrated and well-tested stack. More functionality and less bugs, yes please. But I find this "locking down" perspective quite strange.
    When the GNOME project stops accepting patches from non-Linux and non-systemd technologies, then I suppose you have a case. Until then you are basically just reinforcing a destructive myth.
    I'm just gonna bring up that bit where a Gnome developer said he "didn't see the point of Themes" and said they should remove the ability to theme your system from Gnome...

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    Are you/they a Gentoo user?
    I'm not, I think they are though. yeah...

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    Please point me towards and logind alternative. GNOME developed ConsoleKit until systemd made logind available. Since then, only accusations of bullying. But in fact: systemd provides a solution allowing us to maintain less software. We switch, then this is called bullying? Strange world you're living in!
    Logind is fine. It was developed by the Systemd folks and is a perfectly okay thing. Systemd is a perfectly okay thing. The "bullying" I'm talking about is drawing in outside projects that have been around for a while to be under the Systemd flag when they didn't HAVE to as this forces people that want to use that project to use Systemd. This is honestly the only thing I don't like about it: a single stack is nice and I've used Systemd before. I like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    oh well, good luck with not helping out while complaining that others are doing things.
    Wow. Condescending much? Not that it would matter to you, but I'm learning C to eventually contribute to Mesa and Cinnamon (My favorite DE at the moment). It's kinda hard to "help out" when you don't know enough of the language.

    P.S. Always nice to see how a member of the Gnome release team treats Gnome users who can't contribute code but have criticisms :/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    I'm just gonna bring up that bit where a Gnome developer said he "didn't see the point of Themes" and said they should remove the ability to theme your system from Gnome...
    Which apparently they did not, as I see lots of people with non-stock Gnome-Shell themes.
    Can we please keep to things that *actually* happened, instead of things that *could hypothetically* have happened?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Yes this is the new trend. And you might as well accept it. Pick your stack, just like you pick your kernel.
    Nah.

    The strength of the Linux ecosystem is in its diversity. That's also what I like about it. I'm not interested in a GPL-ed Macintosh clone.

    Linux would not be interesting if you couldn't tinker and try different options.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Your criticisms have no value because it is flawed, thus you best contribution would be to keep quite. Polite people who can't sing know when not to ruin other people's work by making noise.
    What about polite people who can't write grammatically correct sentences?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    What you really hate is no one offers an alternative because then you could use that. The very FACT is that the systemd stack is a joint effort by so many talented people and money sending companies, that you can't expect anyone to match this. If YOU think these very people people and companies should be directed to do software YOUR way, then YOU pay.

    So far your effort have been nothing but angry words, systemd moves ahead every day.
    "no one offers an alternative" I'm currently using Mint 16 which uses Upstart + Cinnamon. A perfectly usable combination, thank you very much. If udev starts actually using Systemd functions (instead of just being packaged to depend on it), we have eudev.

    If that combo ever goes away (which I doubt) am perfectly fine and happy using Systemd, I'm not a hater of the software itself (it does provide quite a few things I like and writing a script for it was super easy).

    Here's a couple real questions I have though: What was the reason for Systemd's creation? I mean, I know it was a "pet project" and all, but is there any reason besides that? Then, why did it become so big so fast when it was created to solve the same problems as upstart and other stuff. Why didn't everybody (intel, etc) jump on the upstart train? Because Red Hat backs Systemd?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •