Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell & Mutter Broke Their Good Faith With Ubuntu

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by GraysonPeddie View Post

    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.
    It’s really not, it’s mainly NVIDIA thing.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Eberhardt View Post

      I love the logic of phoronix readers. I don't like it, so it must be bad and nobody can objectively think it's good.
      It's a pretty common way of thinking unfortunately. "Everyone should be exactly like me, and if they aren't, it's because they are morons".

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by NateHubbard View Post

        It's a pretty common way of thinking unfortunately. "Everyone should be exactly like me, and if they aren't, it's because they are morons".
        LTS kernels and such are bad objectively, from security and stability points. There are many research papers about it. I avoid out of tree drivers like a plague, choosing hardware with drivers in upstream.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

          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.
          I understand this, but... it's just a question of convenience and economic savings, but in contrast with safety.
          Companies must invest in security, security is no longer like it was 10 years ago, even Microsoft realizes it.
          I too know that it is convenient to have an Lts kernel... but today in 2024 it is not the best solution.​

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by woddy View Post

            I understand this, but... it's just a question of convenience and economic savings, but in contrast with safety.
            Companies must invest in security, security is no longer like it was 10 years ago, even Microsoft realizes it.
            I too know that it is convenient to have an Lts kernel... but today in 2024 it is not the best solution.​
            They don't have any real choice at all. Having a questionably more "secure" kernel that breaks your application is useless for business users. I don't see any real safety issues here. If you report any actual vulnerability to enterprise vendors like Red Hat and SUSE, they have an excellent track of fixing it rapidly and vendor LTS kernels maintain ABI stability while avoiding regressions which isn't just convenience but critical for business continuity. As long as upstream doesn't care about that, there is no chance at all that it is going to be adopted by any of the enterprise vendors as the default. The current arrangement is just the plain reality and I don't see it changing as long as upstream development model works the way it does. No amount of whitepapers or fear mongering is going to change that.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by woddy View Post

              I understand this, but... it's just a question of convenience and economic savings, but in contrast with safety.
              Companies must invest in security, security is no longer like it was 10 years ago, even Microsoft realizes it.
              I too know that it is convenient to have an Lts kernel... but today in 2024 it is not the best solution.​
              There is a very big difference between regular-users, and corporations. The sooner people wrap their heads around this the better. Then we can have a very clear line between "distro for desktop" and "distro for corporation". Ubuntu desktop is trying to be everything and failing by being unsuitable for anything but 5 year old corporate hardware.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by fluke View Post

                There is a very big difference between regular-users, and corporations. The sooner people wrap their heads around this the better. Then we can have a very clear line between "distro for desktop" and "distro for corporation". Ubuntu desktop is trying to be everything and failing by being unsuitable for anything but 5 year old corporate hardware.
                Obviously there are differences, but this does not necessarily mean that companies should use kernels and software with security problems, in fact it should be the opposite.
                I understand that for Mr. Pippo using the latest kernel available is relatively simple and painless, while for the large company it is necessary to first test and update the software to make it compatible, on the other hand there are companies that still run XP or Seven on their PCs , but we have to move forward, security has a cost but it must be addressed or we understand it or then we shouldn't be surprised when unpleasant things happen.​

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by woddy View Post

                  Obviously there are differences, but this does not necessarily mean that companies should use kernels and software with security problems, in fact it should be the opposite.
                  I understand that for Mr. Pippo using the latest kernel available is relatively simple and painless, while for the large company it is necessary to first test and update the software to make it compatible, on the other hand there are companies that still run XP or Seven on their PCs , but we have to move forward, security has a cost but it must be addressed or we understand it or then we shouldn't be surprised when unpleasant things happen.​
                  Sure. But you're thinking "corp" here. I'm thinking entirely about regular-users. Which I guess this highlights the point I was trying to make.

                  These are two very different market segments. The one I've been working with for the last 5 years is "regular-user" and they need a distro that updates often enough to not fall behind in support of new hardware. The thing I notice consistently is that you can split a distro in to 2, possibly 3 layers:
                  - hardware support
                  - system level
                  - user level

                  Hardware support being kernel, firmware, graphics stacks. These need to be consistently updated to support new hardware *when it comes out* and not 6-12 months later.

                  System level is I guess self-explanatory: systemd, bintuils, regular CLI stuff most users don't use. This doesn't need updating very often if at all (except security etc). In fact the UX of most of this is bloody ancient.

                  User level: this is desktop and most upstreams have a regular cycle to follow, so distros can just follow that. In fact why key a distro release to one desktop major release? There's no need... Throw flatpak on top and you're done.

                  Again I'm at the "regular-user" end here. It's who i deal with every day in support of ASUS laptops. I in fact don't encounter corp at all except maybe disguised as folks in a corp wanting to switch away with permission (and they just want their shit to work, which ubuntu + new hardware never does unless the hardware is old).

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by AlanTuring69 View Post
                    a fellow corpo in full display

                    how are your runbooks and dashboards looking? what's your OATMNS (ObscureAcryonymThatMakesNoSense) score?
                    SOP literally stands for Standard Operating Procedure and the purpose of one is so everyone knows how they are to handle whatever needs to be done.

                    As a manager, one of my jobs was to create SOPs and ensure that people followed them.

                    An SOP should encompass all eventualities and not require exceptions.

                    If you have an "escape", a "valid" reason for not following an SOP, then it is no good.
                    Last edited by sophisticles; 23 May 2024, 09:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

                      SOP literally stands for Standard Operating Procedure and the purpose of one is so everyone knows how they are to handle whatever needs to be done.

                      As a manager, one of my jobs was to create SOPs and ensure that people followed them.

                      An SOP that should encompass all eventualities and not require exceptions.

                      If you have an "escape", a "valid" reason for not following an SOP, then it is no good.
                      yes, i quite understand what an SOP is. i was mocking corporations, not you

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X