Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell 3.10 Is Ready To Shine On Wayland

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

  • grok
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    Resorting to ad hominems and similar argumentations! Whahahahahah! Jeez man, took a while, but glad you have no arguments anymore.

    As said beforehand: No suspend was totally fine for OpenBSD and Canonical did some effort on themselves to make suspend possible. You seem to have missed this bit? Try and respond to that!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    PS: To make it really clear for you: Your ad hominem regarding me makes no sense as I already mentioned that at least Canonical and OpenBSD are ok with it.
    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?
    I liked using Ubuntu, even though I don't use Gnome 3 or Unity. It's what I install on desktops/laptops, be it text mode installs with LXDE on top (works fine even on Pentium II 233), Xubuntu, Mint 13 or Mint 15.
    I wonder what does that mean for the future of the Linux Mint that uses Ubuntu - I was counting on Mint 17 to be a great release, regardless of the flamewars about systemd vs the world or rpm vs .deb or whatever. Will they modify Cinnamon (custom Gnome 3) further, or hold back on the Gnome 3 version even. I prefer using something else (Mate, Xfce or something else if there's a similar alternative) but this can possibly affect me indirectly, or Cinnamon users.

    Maybe we'll have to live with Mint Debian in the future. But I liked a distro with fixed releases, some of them with 5 year support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krejzi
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    You will, once you realized that eliminating choice and depending on only one software is a bad thing for Linux. But of course you will deny that now. As I already told that Honton troll: If you are against choice and find comfort with that maybe try Apple, seems to fit.
    https://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/20...two-fallacies/

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    Which distros thing about a switch to systemd: Debian, Mint
    Debian is the interesting one. I'm not sure if they will switch yes or no. However, they're planning to make GNOME depend on systemd. Which will automatically improve the systemd support. Gentoo packagers might do something similar, though tried my best to ensure to show them that they could have different options if they really want to. If most distributions _by their own choice_ support systemd in one way, them IMO arguments about if suspend is important or not becomes even more irrelevant. Claims made here that things are forced make no sense. The idea is to minimize differences and work together. For that you need cooperation. In the end it should result in less bugs, easier development. For that I am interested in the following distributions basically: Debian, Ubuntu GNOME, Gentoo.

    And because some people have really short memory here: I assisted Gentoo in ensuring they know they don't have to make GNOME in their distribution rely on systemd. Further, I like *BSD and GNOME should keep running on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
    If it's true gnome depends on systemd then it's problem for many users.
    hmm for many? which bigger distro doesnt use systemd?

    Systemd Distros: Arch Linux, Gentoo (not 100% shure but 99%), Opensuse and of course Fedora
    Non sysd distros: Debian, Ubuntu, Mint

    Which distros thing about a switch to systemd: Debian, Mint

    So Debian isnt really a Desktop Linux but even there you can install systemd, as easy as apt-get install systemd.

    Basicly it comes down to Ubuntu, if you have switched from Ubuntu to Mint to use the vanilla gnome-shell you made something wrong in the first place, and I think such users would switch distro again fast if they want to use gnome-shell, if they even need too.

    Most of the time its only a few small features that dont work without systemd anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    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.
    Resorting to ad hominems and similar argumentations! Whahahahahah! Jeez man, took a while, but glad you have no arguments anymore.

    As said beforehand: No suspend was totally fine for OpenBSD and Canonical did some effort on themselves to make suspend possible. You seem to have missed this bit? Try and respond to that!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    PS: To make it really clear for you: Your ad hominem regarding me makes no sense as I already mentioned that at least Canonical and OpenBSD are ok with it.
    Last edited by bkor; 09-19-2013, 05:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    With power I meant power, not power off. So power management/suspend. Which is handled by systemd, not logind. In case you don't have systemd, those things won't work. Meaning: you can run GNOME just fine, but you lack a bit. Whatever we consider non-critical, which is vague, but too bad. OpenBSD is fine with not having suspend, other distributions could maintain the complicated code that was removed in favour of systemd-only syspend. IIRC the maintenance is what Canonical/Ubuntu does. Note that it is about the 20th time I explained the exact same thing in the last few days for more or less the same people. It would be nice to read and understand a bit, not just look for ways to win a discussion.

    As also explained various times before, we didn't know that logind had no guarantee to be independent from systemd. What we knew is that Canonical requested hard freeze code breaks at GNOME 3.8.0 stage so they could run logind. Only after that stage logind changed, which we did not know until about 2 weeks ago. Nobody on the non-systemd bit ever said anything about this. Yet you somehow expect GNOME to be aware, despite most of us running systemd distributions? The logind change is something I'll raise at the next GNOME release team meeting. See how we actually do things, maybe take a hint? Due note though that despite continued claims that we depend on systemd, we DO NOT DEPEND ON SYSTEMD! Some features require systemd. Go implement the same abstraction layer that systemd provides and GNOME will support you as well. That is what Canonical was planning IIRC. One API, not layers upon layers.

    Regarding non-systemd GNOME developers: I assume that they exists. However, if they maintain some GTK+ application, then they can do this just fine from within Unity, KDE, etc.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    but alas, that's just my opinion, but then again, now i would appear to be the one "forcing" OpenRC onto distro's -lol, o' Lol.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • grok
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    No, you have Wayland and Weston. Wayland can run on anything. Weston, forgot what it requires. The Wayland support in GNOME will require logind, requiring systemd. I have no idea what other desktop environments are planning regarding Wayland support. At the moment, the infrastructure behind Wayland is improving quickly, but that also means that not all the infrastructure is finished yet. Assume the infrastructure GNOME writes will be reused by a lot of other desktop environments (especially when they make use of GTK+). This does not mean that all of infrastructure would require systemd or Linux! E.g. developers do ensure individual parts are portable when possible. No matter if the combined result is not.
    Alright, I must have read some part of your post too quickly, thus Gnome 3 Wayland requires systemd but Wayland itself doesn't.

    In the near future I'll be interested in LXDE-Qt, which may end up runnable in Wayland. So it should run on either X11 or Wayland, and on either systemd or something else. And who knows, in the future I might be running a linux + systemd OS anyway.
    So we can put flamewars apart, if we realise we'll still have other options as usual. LXDE, or LXDE-Qt are examples of very "orthogonal" software - you can decide to use any window manger, panel, file manager, display manager etc. while Gnome 3 or even Gnome 4, "Gnome OS" are heading towards heavily integrated stuff instead.
    The only criticism then would be that GTK3 is too busy deprecating features, forcing stuff i.e. it's turning into a Gnome3-only thing whereas GTK2 was more supportive of other DEs, non-Gnome apps and even Windows apps.

    Leave a comment:


  • scjet
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    If there is any advantages to this, then why not? Yes non-sane distributions and the BSDs are out but no one doing the real work should care.
    so what Debian is "non-sane" too?, just because you don't use it? I mean it doesn't use systemd, but it can, and what's with BSD rants here? was BSD mentioned here ? -nuthin to do with systemD at all.

    some already mentioned that "they" use Fedora, Redhat, ... so what ? I've setup many an RHEL web-server back in the day, but now I also use/prefer Gentoo/Calculate Linux, and the BSD's for a couple servers -but again, so what.
    Focus man, focus on this thread regarding Gnome3, wayland systemD.

    Obviously there is now a lot of IBM/Radfart (oops typo again) + Gnome3 + systemD fan boys here, the subject of this thread naturally attracts them.

    I would have rather prefer OpenRC for obvious reasons, (we can all wiki them for more details)

    Should Gnome3 / Wayland, ..., shackle itself into "just" systemD - "NO"
    Would further OpenRC be more advantageous, (ease, standardization, portability) for one thing, across ALL the Linux distro's, "non-sane" or not? and BSD's ? -"Yes".

    but alas, that's just my opinion, but then again, now i would appear to be the one "forcing" OpenRC onto distro's -lol, o' Lol.
    Last edited by scjet; 09-19-2013, 11:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by grok View Post
    Wayland is only for systemd? And even, only for linux? (you can run X11 under Windows FFS)
    No, you have Wayland and Weston. Wayland can run on anything. Weston, forgot what it requires. The Wayland support in GNOME will require logind, requiring systemd. I have no idea what other desktop environments are planning regarding Wayland support. At the moment, the infrastructure behind Wayland is improving quickly, but that also means that not all the infrastructure is finished yet. Assume the infrastructure GNOME writes will be reused by a lot of other desktop environments (especially when they make use of GTK+). This does not mean that all of infrastructure would require systemd or Linux! E.g. developers do ensure individual parts are portable when possible. No matter if the combined result is not.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X