Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell 3.10 Is Ready To Shine On Wayland

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

  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Ha. True. Worst part is he could have spent his time reading about Gnome and BSD on Gnome's wiki. It is really just a matter about making a few patches for a few modules. They could live in a few branches. But nobody cares besides a few BSD developers.

    Im just happy sandboxing is coming and this means more deps on systemd. Cheers to OpenRC people's exodus.
    OpenRC isn't making an exodus, the last commit happened hours ago, it has been ported to multiple platforms and OS's, it recently became the init system for ArchBSD and it may yet become the default for DragonflyBSD.
    Oh, and it lacks a copyleft license for peace of mind.
    I also don't see systemd taking over from Upstart on the most prevalent Linux platforms, Chrome OS and Android.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    try again when you get sober, this is unreadable
    I agree, that post was to totally whacky that I am doubting if he is really a troll...

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    it's also too bad Torvalds lost his kernel to Android
    What.
    -------

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    ok, so you "like" *BSD's ?:
    You talk about systemd + Gnome3, whatever, like everything is gonna work out fine in the BSD's, hey no worries, whatever. You know developers @openbsd, I know developers in @lalaLand,...
    Well, I haven't seen anything yet regarding "systemd" on any of the *BSD's, it ain't exactly comin' to town soon now is it ?
    Why are you saying crap like this.
    IBM/Redhat + Systemd + Gnome3 (revitalized), but don't worry, it's comin to the BSD's, oh, and if it doesn't, or instead OpenRC is the sober-best way to do do this for ALL concerned then you're just gonna flip-out again. ?
    Dude, you care about the *BSD's, about as much I care about Windows, i mean, can you atleast admit that. ?

    So how much work has really gone into porting systemd to the BSD's -oh that's right becuae IBM/Lennart "hates" the BSD's, -comon man -lol, , that's old, but "factual", slashdot stuff that we all know about now. Thise kinda "jack-boot" attitudes don't go so far these days.

    I think the bullyshit that I'm gonna call, is the same bullyshit that attracted all the IBM/Redhat + Gnome3 + systemd fan-boys here in the first place on this sub-forum, and that's the 1st place
    But please stop makin half-witted promises on things that I know you will laughably blame BSD for later. It'll be BSD's fault for not porting systemd right? -actually that in a way, is right. I can just see Redhat/Lennart now, bending over to help OpenBSD -suuuure.
    But others are also right here, why the f___ should Linux help.port this over for BSD... ?
    ok.

    It's too bad BSD lost half it's cream develpment over to MacOSX, but then again, it's also too bad Torvalds lost his kernel to Android (which are makin' their own Billion$)..., for the next dozen years or so.

    The point is, it would obviously be more advantageous to have an "init" system (what was so wrong with the old one, no really afterall, except for extra eye-candy boot speed?)
    that can work beatifully across ALL other Unix-like OS's of the User's "choice" for gawd sakes. -that would be a noble goal, without prejudice. -hence OpenRC(since 2007), potentially could have filled that void with some un-biased help from all parties concerned.

    If, on the other hand, what you propose technically, can work, and of course stably, for ALL concerned, then fine, I will eat my gawd-dam liquorice baseball cap in front of you.

    There's just somethin' really fishy here, systemD,..., you know, "one ring to rule them all" and it's not gonna come out the way you think, in the worldwide Linux community?, mmm but then again, many bigger civilizations than us, have come n gone too, so who knows?
    try again when you get sober, this is unreadable

    Leave a comment:


  • scjet
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    OpenRC doesn't offer anything near the capabilities of systemd. Various components of systemd work via APIs (often d-bus). If you don't want systemd, write the same functionality without it. Totally ok, just make sure that the API is the same.

    So instead of:

    gnome-shell -> abstraction layer -> "systemd API" -> systemd component
    gnome-shell -> abstraction layer -> "OpenRC API" (often not existing!) -> OpenRC component

    we want

    gnome-shell -> "API" -> systemd/OpenRC/etc component

    because in practice, it is not just gnome-shell talking to some API, various components. This becomes complex and buggy really quick. Simple solution would be to make OpenRC offer the same APIs as systemd/logind/etc has. This is what Canonical would do for something basic (so NOT the entire thing, just the bare minimum) IIRC.

    This is similar as POSIX IMO, just that these APIs are new, due to new requirements. And I forgot, but there are two OpenBSD developers with commit rights on git.gnome.org. They usually find and fix portability issues, but we move a bit faster than they can keep up unfortunately.
    ok, so you "like" *BSD's ?:
    You talk about systemd + Gnome3, whatever, like everything is gonna work out fine in the BSD's, hey no worries, whatever. You know developers @openbsd, I know developers in @lalaLand,...
    Well, I haven't seen anything yet regarding "systemd" on any of the *BSD's, it ain't exactly comin' to town soon now is it ?
    Why are you saying crap like this.
    IBM/Redhat + Systemd + Gnome3 (revitalized), but don't worry, it's comin to the BSD's, oh, and if it doesn't, or instead OpenRC is the sober-best way to do do this for ALL concerned then you're just gonna flip-out again. ?
    Dude, you care about the *BSD's, about as much I care about Windows, i mean, can you atleast admit that. ?

    So how much work has really gone into porting systemd to the BSD's -oh that's right becuae IBM/Lennart "hates" the BSD's, -comon man -lol, , that's old, but "factual", slashdot stuff that we all know about now. Thise kinda "jack-boot" attitudes don't go so far these days.

    I think the bullyshit that I'm gonna call, is the same bullyshit that attracted all the IBM/Redhat + Gnome3 + systemd fan-boys here in the first place on this sub-forum, and that's the 1st place
    But please stop makin half-witted promises on things that I know you will laughably blame BSD for later. It'll be BSD's fault for not porting systemd right? -actually that in a way, is right. I can just see Redhat/Lennart now, bending over to help OpenBSD -suuuure.
    But others are also right here, why the f___ should Linux help.port this over for BSD... ?
    ok.

    It's too bad BSD lost half it's cream develpment over to MacOSX, but then again, it's also too bad Torvalds lost his kernel to Android (which are makin' their own Billion$)..., for the next dozen years or so.

    The point is, it would obviously be more advantageous to have an "init" system (what was so wrong with the old one, no really afterall, except for extra eye-candy boot speed?)
    that can work beatifully across ALL other Unix-like OS's of the User's "choice" for gawd sakes. -that would be a noble goal, without prejudice. -hence OpenRC(since 2007), potentially could have filled that void with some un-biased help from all parties concerned.

    If, on the other hand, what you propose technically, can work, and of course stably, for ALL concerned, then fine, I will eat my gawd-dam liquorice baseball cap in front of you.

    There's just somethin' really fishy here, systemD,..., you know, "one ring to rule them all" and it's not gonna come out the way you think, in the worldwide Linux community?, mmm but then again, many bigger civilizations than us, have come n gone too, so who knows?
    Last edited by scjet; 09-20-2013, 11:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    He said:
    " You can't be real with that, if you really believe that suspend is a non-critical function then you are totally delusioned. "

    Seems pretty much on the person to me, not about the argument.
    If that was the entire quote, then you would be right. But you left off the first sentence, which also happens to be where he/she justified that conclusion. In other words, that isn't an argument at all, it was a conclusion drawn from an argument (your quote just doesn't include the argument).

    Insulting someone because you think they are wrong is not a fallacy (although it may be bad manners). Quoting someone out of context to misrepresent their argument is.
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 09-20-2013, 06:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    There was no ad hominem argument there. "insult" != "ad hominem argument".
    He said:
    " You can't be real with that, if you really believe that suspend is a non-critical function then you are totally delusioned. "

    Seems pretty much on the person to me, not about the argument. Maybe one of the others. Anyway, it is still funny.


    Note that meanwhile I built mutter-wayland 3.9.92 in Mageia Cauldron (was waiting for the clutter release). Further, rebuilt gnome-shell in Mageia Cauldron with Wayland support as well. Wondering what all the "OMG upstream should do something" people have done aside from _only_ talk (especially the not listening bit). The Wayland support in Mageia ensures that the huge amount of Cauldron users can test it. Further, QA team can play with it as well. Nice progress

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    Resorting to ad hominems and similar argumentations!
    There was no ad hominem argument there. "insult" != "ad hominem argument".

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by grok View Post
    I have a feeling you're trolling a bit by comparing Ubuntu with OpenBSD. Why not NetBSD, Haiku, the HURD while you're at it?
    OpenBSD has 2 people who package GNOME and work to make it works on OpenBSD. Canonical does some systemd stuff. I'm not comparing OpenBSD vs Ubuntu, I am following how they integrate GNOME. One of the things that should be done IMO if you're in a release team of a big project. Every member has its own expertise and focusses on different things.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    This is bullshit and you know it. Gnome does not depend on systemd because you have declared suspend to be a non-critical function (ask anyone that uses a laptop if that is a non-critical function), so that you can say: "Hey, systemd is only optional, just don't suspend your laptop."
    You can't be real with that, if you really believe that suspend is a non-critical function then you are totally delusioned.
    I use a laptop, and the only time I used the suspend feature was to test if it worked, because something intrigued me. And actually, it doesn't work right, and I always forget to disable the timed suspension when on batteries. So I'm a someone who considers it non-critical.

    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    and what's with BSD rants here? was BSD mentioned here ?
    Yes, they were mentioned. Several times. Read intellivision posts, at the very least.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X