Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

Thread: GNOME 3.11.2 Has Many Changes

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    I said I hated their methods to force people to use it.
    Can you explain how they are forcing people to use it? I wasn't aware they were bullying the maintainers of udev into merging with systemd, for instance.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    "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?

    Upstart doesn't come close to offering what systemd does. If you want to know why it was created here's the announcement link: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html

    Things to look for in that post, imho, are: keeping track of processes, keeping pid 1 small, and on upstart.
    Upstart simply doesn't cover quite the same area, or do it in as well, as systemd. One of the big telltales of this is that, apparently, ubuntu has still failed to convert a very sizable chunk of their shell scripts to upstart files. Again, apparently, upstart has issues with both properly tracking processes, and doesn't offer anywhere close to the backwards compatibility with sysvinit that systemd does (which, itself, isn't perfect, but does an awfully good job just working with old scripts).
    There is a reason so many people from so many different groups have converged around systemd. It actually solves problems, and is architected extremely well.
    BTW, RH actually use upstart in rhel 6, so they backed the project for awhile.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    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.
    Maybe Linux shouldn't be interesting, in that sense?
    Certain things should JUST WORK. I want acpi to be part of that. If you want to fiddle with your kernel config, init daemon, power management framework, language runtimes, be my guest, b/c I'm positive you will continue to be able to do that for a long time, but you'll probably be compiling them, and carrying lots of patches, but you can certainly do it.
    The HPC folks do it all the time.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    "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.
    That sounds like a misinformed post. Systemd currently depends on udev. Eudev case shows how clueless its maintainers were as they themselves admitted. Debian has no problem building udev seperate from systemd.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    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.
    I don't know C. Well, I can make a very very simple patch to some existing code. I mean one liners. Who cares if someone can code or not.

    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 :/
    You claimed that we don't care about *BSD? Seems you're turning things around. Further, I don't code, so what gives?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Maybe Linux shouldn't be interesting, in that sense?
    Certain things should JUST WORK. I want acpi to be part of that. If you want to fiddle with your kernel config, init daemon, power management framework, language runtimes, be my guest, b/c I'm positive you will continue to be able to do that for a long time, but you'll probably be compiling them, and carrying lots of patches, but you can certainly do it.
    The HPC folks do it all the time.
    Agree fully.

    I use Linux a lot. It is really nice that you can adjust things. But adjusting will always be possible: you have the source, you tinker with every part, you can contribute whereever you want, you can build things exactly like upstream does. Tinkering forever: cool, but it also has to work. Then if it works, it can be fun to take apart and figure things out. But saying that the main purpose is tinkering? That's not why a lot of people are contributing. Seems related to: http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    I see. Some Gnome related person sets up a website with a big "NO" on it and somehow it is true for all and everything, just because he says so.
    Really?
    This one person declares that Linux is not about choice and you use it as an absolute fact?
    Wow, is that the style all discussion works in Gnome?

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    I see. Some Gnome related person sets up a website with a big "NO" on it and somehow it is true for all and everything, just because he says so.
    Really?
    This one person declares that Linux is not about choice and you use it as an absolute fact?
    Wow, is that the style all discussion works in Gnome?
    Wrong. Adam Jackson is a Xorg developer and doesn't work on GNOME.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Wrong. Adam Jackson is a Xorg developer and doesn't work on GNOME.
    He said he was related to Gnome (a release guy or something, too tired to look up)

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    Agree fully.
    I agree as well. Most, if not all, low-level stuff should be a "single-stack".
    Also I've seen a NO site that looks better than that: http://shouldiusetablesforlayout.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    That sounds like a misinformed post. Systemd currently depends on udev.
    It very well may be misinformed. I'm not a very big tinkerer, so most of my information about incompatibilities and what depends on what comes from online articles and friends who are tinkerers. My friend told me he couldn't uninstall Systemd on his distro (I think Gentoo) without uninstalling udev too, so we assumed upstream went ahead and made udev depend on Systemd.

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Upstart doesn't come close to offering what systemd does. If you want to know why it was created here's the announcement link: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html

    Things to look for in that post, imho, are: keeping track of processes, keeping pid 1 small, and on upstart.
    Upstart simply doesn't cover quite the same area, or do it in as well, as systemd. One of the big telltales of this is that, apparently, ubuntu has still failed to convert a very sizable chunk of their shell scripts to upstart files. Again, apparently, upstart has issues with both properly tracking processes, and doesn't offer anywhere close to the backwards compatibility with sysvinit that systemd does (which, itself, isn't perfect, but does an awfully good job just working with old scripts).
    There is a reason so many people from so many different groups have converged around systemd. It actually solves problems, and is architected extremely well.
    BTW, RH actually use upstart in rhel 6, so they backed the project for awhile.
    Thank you. That answered most of my questions

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    He said he was related to Gnome (a release guy or something, too tired to look up)
    What does that mean? He is not "related" to GNOME any more than he is related to KDE or Xfce. He is just an Xorg developer.

Posting Permissions

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