Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME OS Is Taking Shape But Its To Serve For Testing The Desktop

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

  • Mez'
    replied
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post

    It's not a good Linux. It's Debian turned into Windows 10. It's closed-source drivers, subscription-access deployment software, telemetry on-by-default and Amazon Big Data spyware, and redundant trash (i.e. Snap) designed to give Canonical an artificial proprietary advantage.
    I completely disagree or don't care on most points. And the Amazon thing is gone.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    Wow. Godwin's Law is strong in you.
    How has ecofascism anything to do with Godwin's law? The word fascism here is just used as a way to say these ecologists are intolerant towards anybody thinking differently. Same as Fedora cultists.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    By supporting closed-source drivers and software in their main repositories. Got it.
    I don't care so much about closed-source. If there's no valid alternative.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    Why do you defend derivative distros so much and rail against an independent distro like Fedora? Do you have the same amount of disdain against, say, Solus?
    I don't defend derivative distros, they just happen to be more pragmatic in their approach and focus on users rather than on masturbating around their own skills. As much as I could be an elitist, I will prefer popular (accessible) to elitism any day of the week.

    I have nothing against Fedora. I just don't like the recurrent narrow-mindedness of Fedora users, always swallowing anything that is thrown at them and believing without any kind of critical mind that it's better than anything else. Same as Apple users. "Gnome devs gods gave it to us, it has to be the only way" (they see the light, like cultists)... Hence they don't acknowledge other people tastes and workflows. They just think they own the single version of the truth. In reality, there are as many truths as there are users. To each his/her own doesn't exist for them. To each Vanilla Gnome. To each Wayland. Doesn't work that way, sorry.

    I haven't tried Solus yet. But Budgie is the complete opposite approach of Gnome. It is made for users, it acknowledges the diversity of workflows and it let users set it up in different ways so as to please as many workflows as possible. It completely empowers users, and that's exactly how it should be. It's still very much a work in progress though.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    It's spelled "literate".
    Thanks, I guess? Not a native English speaker here, doing my utmost best.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    And no, containerized applications aren't going away. They're just an evolution of existing package management.
    I left Windows 15 years ago because of the waste of resources of bundled packages among other things. I certainly won't go back to a medieval way of handling packages.
    I personally don't care much about containerized applications.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    Now there's a pie chart I'd like to see....
    Just look at the latest Gnome distros usage stats and how the most popular are set up...

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    By copying Windows.
    They aren't. At all.
    I'm using Windows only at work (no choice) and I don't feel like there's much in common between my system at home and the Windows design mess.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    I don't like Ubuntu colours because they are garish, conflicting, lack any thought of design esthetic, and also produce heavy eye strain.
    It's your point of view and I respect it. Yet, I completely disagree.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    I know.
    It's part of their dictatorship and their will of a one-size-fits-all. That approach is just wrong when there are so many different tastes and workflows, you can't hope to push your own little way to people without a few possibilities for most common workflows and have users be satisfied.

    Adwaita is the absolute ugliest theme there is in my opinion. Not a chance in the world I'm using their horror.
    I used Arc for years, but the dull blue background for every highlight/selection is just a no. I would only have changed a couple of colors if it wasn't for the fact that Arc is unmaintained and difficult to customize since it uses irritating gresource files. Other themes just let me tinker with gtk.css (or gnome-shell.css for the shell) with no extra hurdle. It's mostly about changing colors and svg icons though, so it doesn't break anything unless the theme itself is broken after a Gnome update. But I can always revert to a more up-to-date theme.
    Last edited by Mez'; 07-27-2020, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    jo-erlend I don’t understand what you are saying. But asking the community to hand over code at a broad license in return for a GPL downstream is predatory.
    I don't understand why that would be. Very rarely would a big project benefit from giving every contributor full veto. There's a reason why so many Free Software projects use CLAs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Giovanni Fabbro
    replied
    Originally posted by Mez' View Post
    They didn't reinvent the wheel. Isn't that a good thing?Everyone is always complaining that Ubuntu has the NIH syndrome, but here they didn't and yet you are complaining.
    It's not a good Linux. It's Debian turned into Windows 10. It's closed-source drivers, subscription-access deployment software, telemetry on-by-default and Amazon Big Data spyware, and redundant trash (i.e. Snap) designed to give Canonical an artificial proprietary advantage.

    The typical lack of consistency of Fedora cultists. Ecofascists display the same kind of inconsistency of ideas and eventually contradict themselves too.
    Wow. Godwin's Law is strong in you.

    Canonical made debian accessible to everyone while debian couldn't.
    By supporting closed-source drivers and software in their main repositories. Got it.

    Just as Manjaro did with Arch.
    Why do you defend derivative distros so much and rail against an independent distro like Fedora? Do you have the same amount of disdain against, say, Solus?

    I bet you want to keep Linux for a certain (and presumed) IT-litterate elite, only compiling stuff, using tiling managers and keyboard shortcuts-centric workflow. The more accessible it is the less you like it. Well, I can do all that, but my workflow would be awfully slowed down. Not sure you can envision knowledgeable people preferring simplicity though...
    It's spelled "literate".

    Actually I found Windows 10 to be faster than any Linux on my hardware, aside from maybe just pure boot speed. It consumes more memory than a "lightweight" Linux DE (no more than GTK3 or KDE though), but multitasking and graphics performance are just plain faster all around (mouse lag is terrible in Linux). Plus, I can use Linux on it with WSL2. Docker Desktop even now recommends using WSL2 because you can run native Linux applications in Windows with it. I'm not tied into software of any particular nature so long as it works on my hardware and gets the job done. I don't know why GNOME 3 takes so much RAM. It's not like it's any where near as graphically complex as Windows 10's translucent shader-based, and parallaxing GUI desktop theme. If it took less RAM, and if Linux graphics drivers were as fast as they are on Windows (2016 AMD APU here), I might use it more.

    Flatpak is the same crap as snap, and the rest is pro-oriented and as such has little interest to me and to users in general.
    If you've ever used virtual machines, you'd know that Virtualbox is trash compared to KVM. And no, containerized applications aren't going away. They're just an evolution of existing package management.

    You mean that modified Gnome that most individual users adopted massively because it's much more user-friendly than any other Linux OS? And I'm not just talking about Ubuntu, most Gnome users have tweaked it in a way that is closer to the Ubuntu set up than to Vanilla Gnome.
    Now there's a pie chart I'd like to see....

    Again, they understand their user better. This is the ultimate merit in an OS for individuals.
    By copying Windows.

    That is typical of above mentioned Fedora cultists is the lack of consideration for the different workflows, tastes and choices. Even their fans adopted the dictatorship mindset. You don't like Ubuntu colors so you have to belittle them. The usual narrow-mindedness.
    I don't like Ubuntu colours because they are garish, conflicting, lack any thought of design esthetic, and also produce heavy eye strain.

    I'm not using the Yaru theme, I'm using a CSS-customized version of the Matcha-Aliz theme (Manjaro theme in red, based on Arc). Yet, I made heavy use of orange and aubergine because they go along well and are joyful, which is a positive change from the dull blue, black and grey (dark or light).

    Your blinkers will probably not allow you to acknowledge that different users have different tastes, though...
    https://stopthemingmy.app/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mez'
    replied
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    GNOME OS targets developers - the GNOME developers made that clear.
    Gnome targets developers, they've also made that clear along the years.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    One more thing: Canonical had to use the third-party Debian code to start with. Fedora didn't.
    They didn't reinvent the wheel. Isn't that a good thing? Everyone is always complaining that Ubuntu has the NIH syndrome, but here they didn't and yet you are complaining. The typical lack of consistency of Fedora cultists. Ecofascists display the same kind of inconsistency of ideas and eventually contradict themselves too.

    Canonical made debian accessible to everyone while debian couldn't. Just as Manjaro did with Arch.
    I bet you want to keep Linux for a certain (and presumed) IT-litterate elite, only compiling stuff, using tiling managers and keyboard shortcuts-centric workflow. The more accessible it is the less you like it. Well, I can do all that, but my workflow would be awfully slowed down. Not sure you can envision knowledgeable people preferring simplicity though...
    Still, I'm happy it's a choice people with different use cases can make. I embrace the variety of possibilities so that everyone can find something that suits their workflow. Fortunately, other leaders in FOSS have similarly pragmatic visions.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    Red Hat employees are the developers of KVM, virtio, GNOME, Flatpak, Cockpit, and a whole other host of Linux components that are available in other distros.

    Canonical made Snap, their subscription-based system management platform Landscape,
    I only use Gnome in your list.

    Flatpak is the same crap as snap, and the rest is pro-oriented and as such has little interest to me and to users in general.

    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    and modified GNOME into this garish thing with a clashing colour scheme that breaks GTK apps.

    Care to argue those merits again?
    You mean that modified Gnome that most individual users adopted massively because it's much more user-friendly than any other Linux OS? And I'm not just talking about Ubuntu, most Gnome users have tweaked it in a way that is closer to the Ubuntu set up than to Vanilla Gnome. For good reasons.
    Again, they understand their user better. This is the ultimate merit in an OS for individuals.

    What is typical of above mentioned Fedora cultists is the lack of consideration for the different workflows, tastes and choices. ​​​​​​​Even their fans adopted the dictatorship mindset. You don't like Ubuntu colors so you have to belittle them. The usual narrow-mindedness.

    I'm not using the Yaru theme, I'm using a CSS-customized version of the Matcha-Aliz theme (Manjaro theme in red, based on Arc). Yet, I made heavy use of orange and aubergine because they go along well and are joyful, which is a positive change from the dull blue, black and grey (dark or light).
    Your blinkers will probably not allow you to acknowledge that different users have different tastes, though...

    Leave a comment:


  • bregma
    replied
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    BSD gives the user the freedom to do whatever the hell they want with the software, including being able to make modifications closed-source as they see fit.
    You have confused the user and the developer. The developer develops the software. The user uses the software. It's not a coincidence that the nouns and the verbs have the same root.
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    GPL limits what a user can and can't do with the software, thus maintaining credit to the original developer under the same source code, including modifications as per GPLv3. That's IS NOT a freedom unto the user. This is why BSD is known as a "permissive" open source license, while GPL is known as restrictive. It's right there on Wikipedia.
    Full credit is required to go to the developer in the BSD case. It's right there in the words of the license. One of the conditions of distributing software under a BSD license is that credit must be given to the copyright owner(s). Going too far with that requirement is what made the 4-clause BSD license incompatible with the GPL.

    The GPLv3 does not dictate what can and can not be done with software, only how it can be distributed. In fact, if an alternative distribution license does put restraints on the purpose, use, or functionality of the software it is incompatible with Free software and the GPL.

    The GPL does not require that copyright of source code be transferred to some other entity. Modifications to source code of software licensed under the GPL belong to the author of those modifications, not the original author of the source code. This is covered by copyright law, not the software distribution license.

    The ability to examine, stufy, modify, or replace their software is definitely a freedom granted to the user by the GPL that is not offered by a BSD (or similar) license. It is the fundamental reason for the GPL, and the fundamental difference between the GPL and non-copyleft licenses like BSD. A BSD license gives greater freedom for a developer to deny a user freedom. That's why many developers prefer the BSD license and why commercial entities whose economic model is based on increasing revenue by driving up price through restricted supply prefer BSD-licensed software.

    BSD is a more "permissive" software distribution license, yes. For the software distributor, not for the software user. The GPL is far more permissive for the software user, but that's not how certain interests spin it because there's potentially money to be made and excess wealth to be extracted from the system.

    You can choose BSD licensing if you like. Just don't do it because you think it's giving the end user more freedom. In fact it does the opposite.

    I would not rely on effectively anonymous articles on WIkipedia for legal advice.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    I don't know if you can get a Red Hat subscription license to avail yourself to those technologies for use in CentOS, but I think I can safely assume that's a 'no', considering that those are tied to support options.

    I didn't say Flatpak doesn't publish server side software - I said FlatHUB doesn't post information on their website on how their hosted project's build process is set up for their site. In fact, all I see is a "just put stuff on Github and send us a note and we'll do it for you". The reason I pointed this out is because someone brought up that supposedly Canonical does the same thing, I guess (I didn't follow into Canonical's processes, but that's what they were inferring). I pointed out that Flathub seems to have a similar procedure. Also, Flathub will publish closed-source projects. Flathub is supposed to be the go-to destination for Flatpaks, considering that Fedora, run by Red Hatters, is pushing the format, and their own Flatpak support is limited at best (even some GNOME projects made by Red Hat employees aren't in the Fedora Flatpak repo when they're already on Flathub).

    I didn't say Fedora Infrastructure uses proprietary software - I said that Fedora didn't publish build information for certain back end processes - like the building process for Silverblue images. This was a contention not brought up by me, but was brought up by others in FedMag. I have yet to see information about image-building process for this kind of stuff. If you can find it, please let us know where it's hiding.

    I also said that Fedora people, who happen to be Red Hatters, not only confirmed the previous on Fedora Magazine, but also tried to pawn it off with a whole argument about "you have to put some trust in your repo maintainers, yadda yadda". If you can't find that information, it's not my problem - it's in the comments, which can't easily be searched.

    1) You haven't named any crypto packages that are RHEL only. If what you are claiming is true, feel free to name the specific packages. If there are no trademarks in the packages, nothing is stopping you from using any RHEL package on CentOS. So such an assumption is incorrect

    2) What you said about Flathub is incorrect, everything is in the github project site and I and others have already linked to it and explained it you already. So you are entirely wrong about it.

    3) Your claims about Fedora, you have shown no evidence for at all either. Others in the community have been building silverblue variations with KDE, XFCE etc

    https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config
    https://discussion.fedoraproject.org...silverblue/147

    This is all readily available information easily searchable. Your inability to back up any of your claims with any specific evidence at all is your problem

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
    None of this explains how closed-source applications end up on the site, since the code for those projects aren't going to be on Github. This is why I say that there's some kind of back-end manual interaction happening that they aren't documenting.
    https://github.com/flathub/com.spoti...fy.Client.json

    Nothing about being completely wrong. How closed source applications are repackaged for flathub is documented in code going up on github. Each closed source applications build into flatpak is different so you cannot really write 100 percent generic documentation other than the flatpak builder documentation.

    The spotify example is pulling in
    "url": "http://repository.spotify.com/pool/non-free/s/spotify-client/spotify-client_1.1.26.501.gbe11e53b-15_amd64.deb"

    Yes a deb from spotify own web the unpacking the deb and making it into a flatpak install file. Flatpak builder files are not only restricted to source stuff from github can in fact source stuff from any URL.

    Following is the code out the flatpak build file that does the undo debian packaging for spotify.
    Code:
    "ar x spotify.deb",
    "rm -f spotify.deb",
    "tar xf data.tar.gz",
    "rm -f control.tar.gz data.tar.gz debian-binary",
    "mv usr/* .",
    "rmdir usr",
    "rm -r share/spotify/apt-keys share/spotify/spotify.desktop share/spotify/icons share/doc"
    Turns out unpacking something like a deb or rpm file manually is not hard. The trick is providing a compatible runtime.

    The source code used for the package conversion to flatpak that flathub is using to convert closed source applications that is going up on flathub and its a normal flatpak builder files nothing really that special going on here. Yes buildbot is running flatpak builder so running the conversion. So it is 100 percent correct to say flathub builds all the flatpak packages they host. Of course building a flatpak package does not mean you build all the parts inside the package just like any other packaging format.

    The process used convert closed source applications could be used to convert any prebuilt binary be it open source or closed source to flatpak.

    Leave a comment:


  • Giovanni Fabbro
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    Really you are being a fool who has not done homework.
    https://github.com/flathub/buildbot and there is the buildbot-config that contains the configuration files.

    Flathub for their back end build services is using buildbot with a few custom patches. This is being used todo so much automatic CI.
    https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/h...epository.html

    The flathub repos themselves are run by upstream flat-manager.

    Even the flathub website is up in the flathub github account under linux-store-frontend.

    All the parts are there to setup up your own clone of flathub just there is not a nice unified instruction manual todo it.

    The core server stuff mostly does not have manifest because flatpak is not really for services.
    None of this explains how closed-source applications end up on the site, since the code for those projects aren't going to be on Github. This is why I say that there's some kind of back-end manual interaction happening that they aren't documenting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Giovanni Fabbro
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

    So in summary, your made several statements which either were incorrect or not verifiable

    1) Red Hat uses CLA and CentOS website/packagers say RHEL has proprietary software - Incorrect
    2) Flatpak doesn't publish server side software - Incorrect
    3) Fedora Infrastructure uses proprietary software - Incorrect
    4) Red Hat developers said "trust us" - Incorrect or unverifiable
    Wrong.

    I never mentioned CLA. Not even once. Go back and read my comments. There's stuff in RHEL related to some of their subscription connections as well as some crypto packages for regulated industries not included in CentOS. It's not provided in the upstream repos either, so CentOS is not exactly the same as RHEL. I don't know if you can get a Red Hat subscription license to avail yourself to those technologies for use in CentOS, but I think I can safely assume that's a 'no', considering that those are tied to support options.

    I didn't say Flatpak doesn't publish server side software - I said FlatHUB doesn't post information on their website on how their hosted project's build process is set up for their site. In fact, all I see is a "just put stuff on Github and send us a note and we'll do it for you". The reason I pointed this out is because someone brought up that supposedly Canonical does the same thing, I guess (I didn't follow into Canonical's processes, but that's what they were inferring). I pointed out that Flathub seems to have a similar procedure. Also, Flathub will publish closed-source projects. Flathub is supposed to be the go-to destination for Flatpaks, considering that Fedora, run by Red Hatters, is pushing the format, and their own Flatpak support is limited at best (even some GNOME projects made by Red Hat employees aren't in the Fedora Flatpak repo when they're already on Flathub).

    I didn't say Fedora Infrastructure uses proprietary software - I said that Fedora didn't publish build information for certain back end processes - like the building process for Silverblue images. This was a contention not brought up by me, but was brought up by others in FedMag. I have yet to see information about image-building process for this kind of stuff. If you can find it, please let us know where it's hiding.

    I also said that Fedora people, who happen to be Red Hatters, not only confirmed the previous on Fedora Magazine, but also tried to pawn it off with a whole argument about "you have to put some trust in your repo maintainers, yadda yadda". If you can't find that information, it's not my problem - it's in the comments, which can't easily be searched.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post

    Comments aren't searchable. Blame the web designers.
    So in summary, your made several statements which either were incorrect or not verifiable

    1) Red Hat uses CLA and CentOS website/packagers say RHEL has proprietary software - Incorrect
    2) Flatpak doesn't publish server side software - Incorrect
    3) Fedora Infrastructure uses proprietary software - Incorrect
    4) Red Hat developers said "trust us" - Incorrect or unverifiable

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X