Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell & Mutter Broke Their Good Faith With Ubuntu

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

  • #41
    While the fix/feature that Gnome is introducing is not unreasonable, the way it has been done still speaks to a general disregard for the open-source community. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but when your project is the size of Gnome, you no longer have the freedom to just do whatever you want.

    Ubuntu's swift decision to restart their review of Gnome's point releases, especially in light of the project's recent violation of FDO standards and a track record of the arrogance of a small number of senior project members (which even Torvalds has found infuriating), is a good one.

    It's not closing the door to Gnome's efforts. But it is a tacit admission that Gnome is no longer a reliable partner. And we're seeing spreading evidence of that elsewhere. Which is a shame, because much of the work is valuable, and more over, the majority of Gnome contributors are good open-source citizens. But projects like KDE are now warning around some of Gnome's decisions, and others like Mint trying to decentralize and democratize XApp explicitly because of Gnome's unwillingness to play ball. And it is particularly frustrating because it didn't used to be this way.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by timofonic View Post
      In my experience, LTS kernels and using old kernels is both counterproductive and snake oil at same time. Related article: https://lwn.net/Articles/973996/
      That's because you see it the wrong way around. It's not to provide stability to you, it provides ABI stability to nvidia (and other vendors with antiquated designs)... If you don't need third-party kernel modules and software that uses private kernel API, using an LTS kernel has extremely little value indeed.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by GraysonPeddie View Post

        Yeah, I once had that issue under Wayland/XWayland where I experienced eye strain due to flickering during the video call interview. I had to stay with Wayland during the interview or else if I tell them I'm going to switch over to X11, an employer for my future job will look confused and think that I'm not interested in the job. I don't know if that's true, but I'm getting this feeling that Wayland is experimental regardless of which GPU I use. In my case, it's my NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 with the 550 drivers.
        Maybe because it is experimental.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by User42 View Post
          That's because you see it the wrong way around. It's not to provide stability to you, it provides ABI stability to nvidia (and other vendors with antiquated designs)... If you don't need third-party kernel modules and software that uses private kernel API, using an LTS kernel has extremely little value indeed.
          I'd say to fsck them like a plague. I get your point, but it's even a security vulnerability issue yo not follow upstream/main/vanilla.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by timofonic View Post
            In my experience, LTS kernels and using old kernels is both counterproductive and snake oil at same time. Related article: https://lwn.net/Articles/973996/
            That is just thinly veiled marketing by CIQ. If they truly believed that they wouldn't spend so much of their funding trying to clone RHEL via Rocky Linux instead of building their own independent distribution. The numerous problems with the paper are already documented the comments section there but the basic issue here is the overcounting of bugs in vendor LTS kernels as well as the fundamental fact that upstream kernels regular cause regressions and ABI breakages which aren't acceptable for vendor LTS users.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by User42 View Post

              That's because you see it the wrong way around. It's not to provide stability to you, it provides ABI stability to nvidia (and other vendors with antiquated designs)... If you don't need third-party kernel modules and software that uses private kernel API, using an LTS kernel has extremely little value indeed.
              Actually, I use Nvidia driver, and it works so far well with contemporary kernels.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                lots of customers want to use some older distro using an old kernel
                This mentally needs to change. Everyone should want to be on the latest released kernel to get the security fixes. LTS kernels miss a lot.

                Microsoft has a monthly patch Tuesday and people handle that. Linux has a new kernel five times a year. The pace is not impossible to keep up with.

                Comment


                • #48
                  When you read these threads, I'm happy to live on a rolling release...and if there's a problem with an update I rollback, until they fix it. Life's good !

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Mark Rose View Post

                    This mentally needs to change. Everyone should want to be on the latest released kernel to get the security fixes. LTS kernels miss a lot.

                    Microsoft has a monthly patch Tuesday and people handle that. Linux has a new kernel five times a year. The pace is not impossible to keep up with.
                    Linux kernel has far far more releases if you include the "stable" releases but the primary problem is that upstream makes no promises at all on maintaining ABI compatibility and routinely cause regressions that is impossible to keep up with. They also aren't very transparent about security vulnerabilities. This is precisely why corporations are willing to pay a lot of money to enterprise vendors like Red Hat and SUSE to maintain long term versions for them.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Mark Rose View Post

                      This mentally needs to change. Everyone should want to be on the latest released kernel to get the security fixes. LTS kernels miss a lot.

                      Microsoft has a monthly patch Tuesday and people handle that. Linux has a new kernel five times a year. The pace is not impossible to keep up with.
                      It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Linux kernels don't have stable APIs internally. Enterprise distros provide API stability in order to maintain compatibility with out of tree drivers (among other things) which are required to provide functionality missing in the upstream kernels. Plus "stable kernels" are the raison d'etre for enterprise distros. We all go through a lot of effort to maintain the appearance of "upstream first" while actually providing something more akin to what closed source operating systems provide.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X