Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solaris 11.4 To Move From GNOME 2 Desktop To GNOME Shell

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    More like "I'd like to be able to have normal levels of customization as available in other Linux DEs without having to install extensions that may/will break".

    I mean, MATE or even XFCE have less options than KDE (the usual suspect), for example, but still much more than GNOME without the Tweak Tool and extensions.
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

    But Chromium has less features than Firefox, but no one complains about that because "there are extensions to reach the same level of functionality".
    The key part is 'may/will break', Gnome Shell extensions break with pretty much every single release, and are required to get even a basically functional desktop.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
      But Chromium has less features than Firefox, but no one complains about that because "there are extensions to reach the same level of functionality".
      Uhm... no what you post here just makes no sense.

      Chromium and Firefox without extensions have more or less the same feature set and user-accessible options (yeah, firefox exposes a boatload of stuff in about:config but that's like regedit on windows, most people won't use it because there is no info on what most of that does).
      Which is why they had to eventually focus on performance again to remain relevant, as most people use both browsers vanilla, and there only raw performance and stability makes some kind of difference between the two competitors.

      Firefox traditionally had far better extensions because it had a better API, which atm is not the case anymore because that API is deprecated, but afaik this is still a goal with their webextension API. Major extensions whose developer did engage Mozilla developers like Noscript did get their own new webextension API to work, albeit it is still a work in progress.

      So, statements like "chrome/ium has less features than FF" and "chrome/ium can have extensions that reach the same level of functionality of firefox" are both false.

      Both are around the same level of functionality, extensions are better on firefox (yes, still better than Chrome while not as good as the old FF).

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by calc View Post
        The key part is 'may/will break', Gnome Shell extensions break with pretty much every single release, and are required to get even a basically functional desktop.
        That is why most basic Gnome Shell extensions are nowadays officially supported and maintained by Gnome. But also the unofficial extensions I use like Topicons Plus or OpenWeather are under active development and up to date.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
          Really Stability claim is bogus. Not wanting change is correct. Getting rid of hald and moving to KMS was about fixing unfixable issues that causes the desktop environment of unix/linux/bsd to randomly fail. There are other parts that were causing server side stability issues as well.

          Enterprise IT needs serous kick in teeth. Its like them running out of date openssl with known security flaws because it would cost them more certifying the change.

          Claiming stability makes it sound like Enterprise IT is some how doing something good. Not updating and improving resulting in leaving highly flawed items in usage does not sound anywhere near as good but it is the truth of their actions.
          In Enterprise, stability is everything. Those large business servers that juggles billions of dollars every minute - what do you think is prioritized? Performance or stability? Those large business servers are also excusively used in a very controlled way and they are not exposed to the internet for any user. For instance, stock exchanges. They are not accessible to the internet to any random users. No, they are used in a very controlled exclusive way where all members are certified and often use direct T1 connections or something similar.

          And how do you achieve stability? It is said that old mature code is stable, and new code is unstable. Some say that you can not use a new Windows version until the first expansion pack has arrived to iron out the bugs. That is the same reasoning why Enterprise does not want change - to achieve stability. If Red Hat use an old and battle tested kernel instead of the latest kernel - that is because the old kernel probably has less bugs and therefore is more stable. Production never use bleeding edge software, they always use old software. And in Enterprise IT, they use ancient and old software. The same with space rockets, they could use the latest and newest ARM cpus and what not, but instead they always use old cpus that are mature.

          The more important something is, the less risk you take. And risk is uncertainty, and new things are uncertain. You want old mature tech, if your business is really important. That is why ancient slow Mainframes are still in use today and powers lot of the financial system.

          If you have not worked in Enterprise IT, these priorities might be difficult to understand. Desktop users wants the latest and fastest. Enterprise wants stability. Dont touch. And this is why Solaris, AIX, Mainframes, etc - dont want the latest Gnome or whatever tech. Not because lack of developers. Different priorities. Stability.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            There is no force in the heavens and in hell that goes and forces anyone to update their systems. Many devices and businness servers are using some kind of outdated OS for the sake of running their core software.

            But it's irrelevant because they are NOT accessible from outside of their own company network, and they don't care of better performance or something.

            This argument is bullshit, because updating the UPSTREAM of an application or OS or anything does not affect deployed systems. This isn't Windows with mandatory updates, most database servers have total shit security anyway as they are mostly dumb appliances sitting in a secured internal network.
            I am glad that you agree in Enterprise IT stability is the highest priority, which is why they dont want any change.


            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            I've seen far more C# in company servers than Java. I've seen also a fuckton of Cobol programs still in use for banks and finance, and they still hire Cobol programmers here.
            If you have seen more C# in company servers than Java, then it is because you are not working with the large business servers. Then you are working with the clients. For instance, stock exchanges. The stock exchange is exclusively powered by C/C++ or Java running on Unix or Linux. The banks that connect to the stock exchange, have often built their trading server in C#. But that trading server is just a client to the real Enterprise server: the stock exchange. So when people say they see more C# than Java or C++, then they are not working with the large enterprise servers. For instance, London Stock Exchange tried to rewrite their stock exchange in C# - but it crashed now and then. So LSE bought MilleniumIT which develops stock exchange systems running on Solaris/Linux. So I repeat: no large enterprise server runs C#. It is exclusively C/C++ or Java. Only the clients on the desktops run C#.

            BTW, Cobol is powering large enterprise mainframes. So in that case, you work with the true large servers.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by pavlerson View Post
              If Red Hat use an old and battle tested kernel instead of the latest kernel - that is because the old kernel probably has less bugs and therefore is more stable. Production never use bleeding edge software, they always use old software.
              Lets point out how this simple statement is so far wrong its not funny, Bug tracking by Redhat on their kernels shows without question using old kernels have more bugs than using newer kernels. What is going on here. Simple new kernel gets to alter internal structures to fix serous issues old kernel has to have the patches modified to kept the same internal structs to deal with the same issues and in a lot of cases being stuck with the same internal structs makes repairing bugs impossible..

              So what you said is false. The real world probably if you use real world numbers instead of guess work is that old Linux kernel will have more bugs than using a more modern version. This is also coming from the fact that more complete quality control is used on Linux next branch than on the older LTS branches and older. The newest features for detect coder errors are used in the Linux kernel next branch first it might take 4 to 5 years for the old kernel in something old versions of redhat enterprise to have those tools run over it. Not only is the kernel old the quality tools used to validate quality of the code in the kernel is old.

              So Enterprise people are very much like the Emperors new clothes. Yes running around effectively security starkers yet attempting to claim to be well dressed.

              Its one thing to say we want to remain on old code because it should be lower bug(this is Faith) is another thing to be running that old code without using up-to date validation solutions run over it to make sure it is in fact quality(this is engineering).

              The problem here Enterprise lot of time believes in faith with software instead of proper engineering that says you should be able validate your design as correct and you should update your validation methods based on latest discoveries.

              Even more false when you look at a old version of sel4 vs a new version of sel4. Due to sel4 being mathematically certified the newer versions of sel4 always have less bugs than the older versions.

              It costs more to make quality code and keep proper updated validation systems. Believing the myths allows Enterprise to avoid having to reach into pocket and spend more on software development/auditing and maintenance..

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post

                Why...
                Because GNOME Shell is actively maintained by the community, and GNOME 2 isn't...?

                Comment


                • #48
                  oiaohm rtfazeberdee Thank You for answers.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by calum View Post

                    Because GNOME Shell is actively maintained by the community, and GNOME 2 isn't...?
                    Wow, someone got it!

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      I've seen far more C# in company servers than Java. I've seen also a fuckton of Cobol programs still in use for banks and finance, and they still hire Cobol programmers here.
                      AFAIK there's quite a shortage of COBOL programmers because language is almost 6 decades old, "old hands" are retiring/have retired and there is not enough new COBOL programmers replacing them.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X