Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell & Mutter Broke Their Good Faith With Ubuntu

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

  • #61
    I knew that this was going to be good.

    who would win between Ubuntu, Gnome and Ngreedia?

    As expected, the so called FOSS lovers hypocrites will defend Ngreedia.

    lol

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by agd5f View Post

      It doesn't matter, it still sucks. Even when you start upstreaming code before you get silicon back it's still hard to get alignment with Linux distros. Hardware schedules rarely align with distro schedules and hardware programs are usually designed to finish by product launch, not 6 months before product launch. On top of that, every distro uses a different kernel version. Everyone ends up having to backport lots of patches to various different kernel versions. Moreover, lots of customers want to use some older distro using an old kernel so even if you manage to get everything you need upstream and into the appropriate kernel releases to align with the next release of the distros, the customer wants to use a distro that was released a year earlier.

      On top of that, a lot of baseline features that customers rely on are not supported upstream due to bikeshedding and developer disagreements. To support them, you need to provide out of tree drivers with that functionality added on. The distros even support it. They go out of their way to make it possible to install out of tree stuff to enable customers even when there are open source solutions available because of these missing features. It's painful for everyone involved.
      Those aren't Linux problems. Those are distro specific problems. Run a rolling release distro and you have your drivers on day one. The drivers are available, but point release distros choose not to use them right away. This is exactly why I only use rolling distros for my personal use now.

      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.
      Originally posted by timofonic View Post

      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.
      Many enterprise customers can't justify always upgrading hardware. Too much downtime and testing involved in the rollover. Migrating data is a tricky bitch sometimes.

      And where are we getting this security arguments from? Regular security updates are part of what make them LTS kernels by name. They are actively maintained and supported, and exploits are patched. Sometimes new hardware (mostly networking and storage) is even backported into them. These aren't just some old, out of date kernels.

      LTS isn't really intended for regular desktop users. It's mostly for enterprise.​ And enterprise takes security seriously.

      Comment


      • #63
        SO MUCH effort goes into trying to stabilize something, freezing it in time, latest news from ubuntu land is LTS support period of 10 years!

        When the option would be to use those resources to make sure upstream does not break or regress, always rolling with it.

        It's posssible. I have been running the same Manjaro install for about 6 years, and one or two times done manual config file updating, otherwise it just keeps working on its own. Compare this to the hassle of 2 year ubuntu LTS cycle where reinstall without even trying to upgrade was the fastest and cleanest way to go. And only on ubuntu LTS have i had an update make the computer fail to boot.
        Last edited by varikonniemi; 24 May 2024, 03:44 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
          SO MUCH effort goes into trying to stabilize something, freezing it in time, latest news from ubuntu land is LTS support period of 10 years!

          When the option would be to use those resources to make sure upstream does not break or regress, always rolling with it.

          It's posssible. I have been running the same Manjaro install for about 6 years, and one or two times done manual config file updating, otherwise it just keeps working on its own. Compare this to the hassle of 2 year ubuntu LTS cycle where reinstall without even trying to upgrade was the fastest and cleanest way to go. And only on ubuntu LTS have i had an update make the computer fail to boot.
          That's because normal users are not the intended target for LTS

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

            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.
            If your app breaks, fix it for god's sake!
            I'm not saying that LTS kernels are insecure, but as all maintainers always explain, backports for security updates are made, only when possible and only when convenient, that's the logic.
            So yes, they are less secure, backports can create regressions or other security issues or general bugs.
            These problems are recognized by all enterprise distributions including SUSE and Red Hat, who do what they can.​

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by woddy View Post

              If your app breaks, fix it for god's sake! .​
              How? Most ISV certified products don't come with any source code and why should I spend my time fixing something when the Linux kernel ABI breaks my application even if I have the source code? This doesn't make any sense.

              Originally posted by woddy View Post
              I'm not saying that LTS kernels are insecure, but as all maintainers always explain, backports for security updates are made, only when possible and only when convenient, that's the logic. .​
              No, vendor LTS kernels maintained by Red Hat and SUSE have contractual obligations and fix the security vulnerabilities per their SLA. It has nothing to do with convenience.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by patrick1946 View Post

                The problem with their LTS is breaking updates. And there is no easy way back.
                BTRFS not help?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Rovano View Post

                  BTRFS not help?
                  But for that it needs to be automatic.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    "GNOME Shell & Mutter Broke Their Good Faith With Ubuntu"

                    actually what happened:

                    "GNOME and Ubuntu are no longer aligned on what a point release is, and so GNOME point releases will instead be evaluated on a case-by-case basis instead of blanket allowlisting"

                    started a 7-page flame war because it involved Canonical, the most important vendor, and GNOME, the most important desktop. well done !

                    dont take the bait, anyone reading this. i warned you

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Rovano View Post
                      Considering that these patches broke some things for some people around of DEs, I'm not surprised.
                      Not sure what you're talking about. What broke?
                      Originally posted by spyke View Post
                      Didn't they apply the triple buffering patch for Mutter in the past Ubuntu releases? I think the explicit sync is quite similar in size/effect.
                      The triple buffering changes are surely way more intrusive than the explicit sync ones.​

                      Originally posted by loganj View Post
                      i thought that explicit sync is a bug fix for every gpu except nvidia.
                      while nvidia had issues with wayland, i thought that wayland protocol was the problem and nvidia actually fix it for every gpu
                      What you thought is pretty much the opposite of the truth.​

                      Originally posted by AlanTuring69 View Post
                      "GNOME Shell & Mutter Broke Their Good Faith With Ubuntu"
                      This kind of click-bait title is getting really old, it's quite clear Michael is doing it on purpose though.

                      actually what happened:

                      "GNOME and Ubuntu are no longer aligned on what a point release is, and so GNOME point releases will instead be evaluated on a case-by-case basis instead of blanket allowlisting"
                      Actually, it's just that Canonical "discovered" that mutter/gnome-shell .1 releases aren't really point releases in the established sense, since they branch for the next major release only later. This is neither new nor a secret.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X