Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell 3.10 Is Ready To Shine On Wayland

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

  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Really? Yes, let us see how we can selectively quote you:

    So suspend on Gnome, according to you, depends on systemd. But how can that be? Wasn't it you that stated:Wouldn't that mean that suspend is, according to what you have posted, for Gnome developers an optional feature and only available if you run it on systemd?

    But anyways, I wonder why you haven't answered my questions:
    - You say that almost all Gnome developers use distros that run on systemd. What are the others running and why don't they care about this?
    - Was their any talk with the systemd developers when logind became dependent on systemd or is it that Gnome developers just don't care?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • grok
    replied
    Wayland is only for systemd? And even, only for linux? (you can run X11 under Windows FFS)

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    Suspend doesn't have anything to do with logind.

    This is the point I am making. You know shit all, don't read, make statements and the first point you make is incorrect.

    E.g. you claim yet another thing, that powering down is not the same as suspend. Powering down is good enough for OpenBSD. Whoops, you didn't read yet again and you're proven wrong yet again. Then using selective quoting to ignore bits you don't like.

    If you run a distribution and want to offer choice, then you have to do a bit more in the integration part. There is no free lunch for you! Offering suspend is still possible, just that the burden has shifted.

    Expecting you yet again to selectively quote and make up yet another claim!
    Really? Yes, let us see how we can selectively quote you:
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    As explained in my post, GNOME only depends on logind for some things. So if you really don't want systemd/logind, then you can, but it will lack a few things. The last communication from the GNOME release team stated basically "only for non-critical functionality". At the moment, the power bit and suspend require systemd. Though with some effort a distribution could reuse the old code if it still works. Systemd makes things easier at a desktop environment level. I like Gentoo, *BSD, etc, but there is too much talk and severe lack of code contributions. At the same time, systemd allows a big simplification in the code.

    Note that things will change with Wayland. See e.g. the logind VT switch functionality. I assume that'll be used for the GNOME Wayland support (so not Wayland in general).
    So suspend on Gnome, according to you, depends on systemd. But how can that be? Wasn't it you that stated:
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    That is correct.

    GNOME does not have a hard dependency on systemd. It only requires logind for the Wayland support in Mutter in 3.9/3.10; Wayland support is still under development and if you run X11 the dependency is still optional. Some things assume some functionality in an init system that not every init system could do (e.g. clean all the children of a daemon; GDM 3.8+). Wayland support in Mutter relies on logind to handle VT switching and some other tasks IIRC (so the Wayland bit in Mutter, not Wayland itself). This means that in future if we'd _only_ have Wayland support it would result in a hard logind depedency (thus systemd).

    Now for logind, systemd changed after Canonical packaged it so that logind requires systemd due to cgroups. But that was not a known change, we assumed we it was more portable and would stay that way.

    Note that I had pretty extensive discussion on #gentoo-desktop regarding the issues that they face. GNOME within Gentoo still might depend on systemd to make it easier to avoid any issues, but that would (at the moment) be more to reduce the amount of work to package it. Providing choice simply requires effort.

    For people suggesting that ConsoleKit should be used: If I check the git logs, the logs indicate that it was started by William Jon McCann, a person involved within GNOME. Aside from that you see various other GNOME developers. If the people (not me) who wrote and for a long time maintained ConsoleKit give their opinion, I assume it is worth listening to. They ensure non-logind is possible. In GNOME 3.8 as well as upcoming GNOME 3.10 (except Wayland support).

    It would be nice if logind did not depend on systemd.

    PS: Functionality of OpenRC was extended for GNOME 3.8 in Gentoo. IIRC by GNOME packagers in Gentoo.
    Wouldn't that mean that suspend is, according to what you have posted, for Gnome developers an optional feature and only available if you run it on systemd?

    But anyways, I wonder why you haven't answered my questions:
    - You say that almost all Gnome developers use distros that run on systemd. What are the others running and why don't they care about this?
    - Was their any talk with the systemd developers when logind became dependent on systemd or is it that Gnome developers just don't care?

    Leave a comment:


  • grok
    replied
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    well KF5 is on heavy development but already the idea of burning with fire KDM codebase entirely is there and the logind integration is there too, check the mailing list is actually free

    Systemd is not a problem of use this by force because evil lennart and redhat wanna control the world, the problem lies that systemd is already too far away from any other init system in features that for developers is like go back to use wooden square wheels in their cars after have tried solid bullet proof round wheels with radials.

    the problem is not systemd, is all other systems that refuse to leave the 90's SCO era

    systemd for users completely destroy any other choice in features and for developers[especially ISV and DE teams] it make things 100000000 times easier, faster, more reliable and standarized across distro(ofc you have to bother in do the mortal sin of going to http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ and do the heretic act of read a bit )
    LOL, I am a bit put off by the passive aggressive rant about spelling, and then that page contains link to mailing lists, bug reports and the like, then a link to random man pages. Then quite some link sure.
    So I don't know too much what to read in this, but I won't much. I run debian/ubuntu distros. I've thought of going FreeBSD for a server, anyway.

    So the issue is investing time and resources into learning this do-it-all stuff, but then if I want to run a non supported OS then I won't have it, so that's wasted time. That must be why systemd proponents are so defensive.
    Last edited by grok; 09-19-2013, 09:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    There is no backend for something like that. GNOME consists of a lot of modules. Each module has to work together with other modules. Various things already are an abstraction. What a backend would do is add yet another layer of abstraction. Thereby limiting what can be done to the lowest featureset across all the possibilities. That's not what makes sense.
    The needed abstractions exists already, that's what I tried to make clear with my post. The fact there was a time when you could choose to either use ConsoleKit or logind implies this. So you can write the actual implementation for the features using it, with the login system you use, if it implements the features needed for them to work. That's what I meant by backend.

    As said before, people only want differences and complain here. Don't listen, don't do anything, don't have experience, don't read. They do twist things so their opinion stays the same.
    That's the impression I'm getting, yes. But that doesn't stop nobody from proposing solutions to those complaints

    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    ok, well if we can remeber no-gui's (dos), then we also can remeber the "fact" that there were already GUI's, even before "dos", or atleast around that same time.
    aka apple, amiga, commodore, atari, ..., comon' it is what people/Users' wanted.

    If Microsoft had not have come up with a Window gui way back when, then they would have been thrown out of the PC explosion looong ago. -we all know it.
    And, it's exactly becuase of lots of people "complaining", why Microsoft was forced to "develop" Windoze ! -it's what the Microsoft User's wanted.

    Same holds tru for Linux. It's not what the Linux "Dev's" want, or think they know what the User want's, and if they do, -then they be better be dam right !?
    It's the User that ultimately decides the end, or atleast it should be, generally speaking.
    If you try and "force" things on the User's, or companies,...whoever, (like Gnome3,..., pulseaudio, systemD), whether it is "free", or not, then you will, most likely in the end, LOSE them.

    Hey, Gnome3 "gambled" too far away from Gnome2, and they lost, so far. and who decided that? -the Linux "User's" -that's who.
    Yes, and the same way Windows would have thrown out of the desktop if they'd keep with the hackish way of bringing such GUI as done until Windows 9x, because it caused the system to be unstable.
    And again, MS implemented this because they had an interest. They charged by the software. If everyone involved in developing (either by funding or by directly developing) is using systemd, it becomes obvious this will be their first choice when implementing features depending on the init system, and the only one they will be interested in implementing themselves. They seem to have been kind enough to make it abstract, so other interested individuals can implement the same features within other init systems. Expecting otherwise would have been as expecting MS had shifted to enhance Apple's GUI instead of making one for their own OS: what interest could they have on doing so?
    Losing users who don't contribute a thing is not a lose from the point of view of support. It might make you less popular, but as long as RHEL users are happy with it, the users paying the bill are mostly satisfied (and whoever makes donations, of course).

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    If you try and "force"
    GNOME handed out git commit rights to MATE developers. Since, MATE has taken over the maintenance of at least one module. GNOME also releases loads of code as either GPL or LGPL. We are furthermore heavily involved in freedesktop.org, ensuring that various infrastructure bits can be used by any desktop environment.

    So in short: There is no force, also no "force" going on. People within GNOME go out of their way to improve the desktop experience no matter which desktop environment you use.

    Aside from this, we did not write systemd (this is also the correct way to write it).

    Apologies for being factual :P

    Leave a comment:


  • scjet
    replied
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    ...
    Also, before GUIs existed, there was no one complaining they didn't have one. But try to give a random user a CLI, and look at the reaction.
    ok, well if we can remeber no-gui's (dos), then we also can remeber the "fact" that there were already GUI's, even before "dos", or atleast around that same time.
    aka apple, amiga, commodore, atari, ..., comon' it is what people/Users' wanted.

    If Microsoft had not have come up with a Window gui way back when, then they would have been thrown out of the PC explosion looong ago. -we all know it.
    And, it's exactly becuase of lots of people "complaining", why Microsoft was forced to "develop" Windoze ! -it's what the Microsoft User's wanted.

    Same holds tru for Linux. It's not what the Linux "Dev's" want, or think they know what the User want's, and if they do, -then they be better be dam right !?
    It's the User that ultimately decides the end, or atleast it should be, generally speaking.
    If you try and "force" things on the User's, or companies,...whoever, (like Gnome3,..., pulseaudio, systemD), whether it is "free", or not, then you will, most likely in the end, LOSE them.

    Hey, Gnome3 "gambled" too far away from Gnome2, and they lost, so far. and who decided that? -the Linux "User's" -that's who.
    Last edited by scjet; 09-19-2013, 08:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    Where "increased exponentially" equals writing a backend to upstart or whatever they want to use for the needed features, if it provides the features expected. Even more, since there was a ConsoleKit backend for the same features (which bitrot, because nobody was willing to maintain it when they called for it), I'm pretty sure the work on the abstraction front is already done. Only thing lacking is the actual backend.
    There is no backend for something like that. GNOME consists of a lot of modules. Each module has to work together with other modules. Various things already are an abstraction. What a backend would do is add yet another layer of abstraction. Thereby limiting what can be done to the lowest featureset across all the possibilities. That's not what makes sense.

    As said before, people only want differences and complain here. Don't listen, don't do anything, don't have experience, don't read. They do twist things so their opinion stays the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    They weren't complaining about it before systemd came along and tried to assimilate the Linux space.
    And it looks as though the largest players such as Google and Canonical will not be moving their platforms' bases to systemd either, so now the workload of porting Gnome to those platforms has increased exponentially.
    Google and Canonical as companies have nothing to do with GNOME. Related, Android as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkor
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Which in the real world doesn't make that much a difference: "Hey, you want to suspend that machine when using Gnome? Sorry , but you have to change to logind. Oh, and to systemd. And when you are at it, you can also use journald and whatevertheycomeupwithd."
    Suspend doesn't have anything to do with logind.

    This is the point I am making. You know shit all, don't read, make statements and the first point you make is incorrect.

    E.g. you claim yet another thing, that powering down is not the same as suspend. Powering down is good enough for OpenBSD. Whoops, you didn't read yet again and you're proven wrong yet again. Then using selective quoting to ignore bits you don't like.

    If you run a distribution and want to offer choice, then you have to do a bit more in the integration part. There is no free lunch for you! Offering suspend is still possible, just that the burden has shifted.

    Expecting you yet again to selectively quote and make up yet another claim!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X