GNOME Shell 3.10 Is Ready To Shine On Wayland

[mrugiero]

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

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).

[grok]

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.

[Vim_User]

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:

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:

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?

[grok]

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

[bkor]

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.

[bkor]

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.

[scjet]

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.

[grok]

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.

[bkor]

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.

[Vim_User]

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.