Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 3.8 Is Dropping Its Fallback Mode

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic GNOME 3.8 Is Dropping Its Fallback Mode

    GNOME 3.8 Is Dropping Its Fallback Mode

    Phoronix: GNOME 3.8 Is Dropping Its Fallback Mode

    Matthias Clasen on the behalf of the GNOME Release Team has announced that they have decided to eliminate GNOME's "fallback mode" with the upcoming 3.8 release that allowed a "GNOME classic" mode that didn't depend upon OpenGL/3D rendering and was more like the GNOME2 traitional desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIyNTE

  • gamerk2
    replied
    Yes, actually I will. Lack of discipline that comes with the education is part of the reason GNU, Xorg, and various other projects are in their current states.

    Would you want a doctor who never attended Medical School?

    Example:

    Had you completed a basic Computer Science education track, you'd have taken a Senior level class called Software Engineering.

    They teach you the basics about deliverables, requirements gathering, and project management.

    Essentially, you learn all the phases of actually developing software from providing time-lines to delivering an installation media.


    Hence the problem with Gnome 3. Who gathered the requirements? Who was the customer?
    First off, coming from a tech school, I have a VERY low opinion of most Comp Sci curriculums. This article sums up my thoughts rather nicely:

    http://www.flounder.com/bricks.htm

    That being said, knowing how to do proper design, documentation, and testing is a MUST, and I've found, on the whole, those that are self taught will be severely lacking in at least one of these three key areas. I currently work as a defense contractor, and trust me, you learn very quickly how to document and test code properly. And I haven't even gone into requirements mapping yet (let alone defining what is and is not a requirement).

    I've had the benefit of having co-workers who had the time to properly teach me how things work, how to do proper S/W design, and proper testing methodology. Most people don't, and it shows in the code they put out. They do an experimental hack that has a minor performance benefit in a single application, on a single set of H/W, and poof, it gets pulled upstream. Then sites like Phoronix dig up performance regressions, do an investigation, and manhours that could otherwise be spent fixing other more pressing problems are wasted trying to find said regression. Do this enough, and you can easily stall development by months/years due to the neverending hunt for extra performance.

    Systems Architect isn't coding. It's building computers and loading operating systems.
    Sure it is. Remember, that in systems that are built from the ground up, the System Architects are generally the ones who define all the S/W interfaces, and likely design/test the majority of the initial code base that the system runs on. The software guys take over once the system itself is up and running according to spec. There aren't many pure Software/System guys anymore, unless they work strictly on "application" software.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbamber85
    replied
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    ...if programmers are using it then it must have a better design.
    That's a bit of a stretch. People contribute to projects for many reasons, I suspect the primary one is that they like it - rather than it's easy to.

    Leave a comment:


  • linuxl4
    replied
    I do like gnome 3 if gnome-shell don't eat too much cpu time( for this reason, I return to fedora 16 from f17), how about gnome 3.6 and 3.7 (and 4.0)?
    I really think gnome 3 is far much better than gnome2. Don't drop the fallback mode please, let it better and faster, and more beautifull.

    Leave a comment:


  • matobinder
    replied
    Fallback mode... I felt it was "make Gnome3 partially usable again" mode...

    I'll probably look at switching to xfce or something. I've used Gnome for years, but with Gnome3, it starting getting completely cumbersome and hard to use. I guess it depends on how you use it though. Though that is probably because I am much more comfortable with launch and running everything from a terminal and command line.

    It just feels clumsy. Especially when you using 2-4 monitors. I mean, Linux and Unix machines(that run X) have usually always had at least two monitors. It seems they are making these changes with out thinking additional displays. Even Microsoft has made Windows work nicely with multiple displays in the last 10 years.

    Well, I guess I won't need to worry about it too much, RHEL 5 and 6 are on Gnome2. Which is what I need to do most all my work on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nevertime
    replied
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    What is this arrogance that nobody is allowed to criticize your work? Are you some kind of an ideal?
    You are allowed, but he's equality allowed (rightly or wrongly) to dismiss your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong but in some areas you get a nasty culture where you risk getting your head bitten off if you dare to disagree with a reviewer. Everyone has an opinion and the freedom to express that opinion should cut both ways.

    This is my opinion... and like everyone one with an opinion I know I'm right :P

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by Licaon View Post
    far less used maybe, but it's been *the other GTK* DE/WM for at least 5 years
    Xfce 4.0 turned a CDE clone into a Gnome 2.x clone. Using Xfce then was mostly pointless because Gnome 2.x was already there.
    Polls I've seen over the years indicate that Xfce in the past had a user base of 3%?10% and after Unity and Gnome Shell a user base of 10%?20%. Obviously single polls are hardly representative but IMO the general trend is: Xfce is gaining users and the once dominating Gnome desktop (with ~50%, depending on the poll) split its user base into 3 factions (standard Gnome, Unity, and Xfce) with roughly equal size.

    So I keep my position: Not knowing about Xfce two years ago is IMO understandable.

    Leave a comment:


  • daniels
    replied
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    internally I think gnome shell is better than gnome 2 (I cannot guarantee this, I read it somewhere and judging by so many devs jumping onto gnome shell I think it's true)
    translation: i haven't the faintest clue what i'm talking about and have never touched code but here's my pointless ill-informed thoughts on code anyway. blah blah blah everything is terrible blah blah amateurs blah blah i could do better blah blah lol not really i have no idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • daniels
    replied
    Originally posted by squirrl View Post
    Yes, actually I will. Lack of discipline that comes with the education is part of the reason GNU, Xorg, and various other projects are in their current states.

    Would you want a doctor who never attended Medical School?

    Example:

    Had you completed a basic Computer Science education track, you'd have taken a Senior level class called Software Engineering.

    They teach you the basics about deliverables, requirements gathering, and project management.

    Essentially, you learn all the phases of actually developing software from providing time-lines to delivering an installation media.


    Hence the problem with Gnome 3. Who gathered the requirements? Who was the customer?
    thanks, i look forward to you outlining your magnificent (and magnificently-managed) projects to explain why you're in such a position of authority to be passing judgement on others.

    (for the record, i do know the class schedule, as i was doing a software engineering degree, just didn't complete it. i spent the next few years actually scoping, discussing, planning, implementing, and completing projects instead. thanks for the advice tho.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Delgarde
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    What code gets removed with fallback mode?
    Quite a few modules (e.g gnome-panel, gnome-applets, metacity) can be discarded entirely, though since they're separate modules, they're not that big a deal for maintenance. But the best example I know of is Nautilus, which under fallback is responsible for rendering the desktop icons - since this is unnecessary under Shell, there's a heap of code that can be removed with this decision.

    From my reading of desktop-devel-list, there's also a lot of small stuff scattered through Gnome's configuration and session management code (control-panel, gdm, gnome-session, etc).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X