Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
I could list all the subscribers/guest who were quick to reply "you can always use fallback mode" whenever someone complained about a new GNOME (anti)feature... I could, but I'm not going to. You know who you are.
GNOME 3.8 to drop fallback mode
Posted Nov 9, 2012 10:51 UTC (Fri) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:13 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
GNOME devs want everyone's GNOME desktop to look the same. They keep saying this, there's no reason to disbelieve them when they say this is their goal for GNOME.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:21 UTC (Fri) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715)
That's not the reason for dropping fallback mode see:
Yes I know fancy conspiracy theories are more fun then the boring reality but still such comments aren't helpful.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:32 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
"In addition to these issues, some people would like to improve components of the fallback mode to work differently -- but in a way that would make the fallback mode work more like GNOME 2, and diverge from the GNOME 3 vision. Those contributions are usually blocked because the goal of the fallback mode is to work the GNOME 3 way."
Note that one of the earlier reasons is that fallback mode wasn't being maintained, but from that paragraph it's clear that those who care enough to work on fallback mode have their contributions blocked because of "the GNOME 3 vision".
It's bizarre that you dismiss comments that were formed by effectively summating public statements from GNOME devs as conspiracy theories, and give links that contain material which actually is consistent with the point you intended to refute.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 12:50 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Gnome (the project) has a vision of a consistent environment, so they don't accept patches that go against that overall design. Very rightly so. If somebody doesn't like Gnome 3, they are free to use another desktop environment. Nobody is forced to use Gnome 3, and nobody should feel entitled to dictate their overall view on the Gnome project. At least not without being actively involved in said decision process, and definitely not by whining in public. If you like Gnome 2 so much, go contribute to the projects which work on grafting the Gnome 2 UI onto Gnome3 infrastructure. "Code talks, BS walks," as they say.
BTW, I do remember all the screaming and shouting about the oh so bad, unusuable, klunky new Gnome 2, with hordes threatening to abandon Gnome, or keeping Gnome 1 alive forever. After a few releases of Gnome 2, the loud complainers were silently using Gnome 2... and AFAICS the very same thing is happening right now, again.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 12:59 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
That's not to suggest they're not entitled to do that.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 14:03 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
After a few releases of Gnome 2, the loud complainers were silently using Gnome 2... and AFAICS the very same thing is happening right now, again.
Maybe. I think there are a number of ways this is playing out:
Posted Nov 9, 2012 14:42 UTC (Fri) by alexl (subscriber, #19068)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 16:05 UTC (Fri) by fb (subscriber, #53265)
I would argue that while all these desktops change, the rate of changes is (IMO) a lot higher in Linux.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 17:07 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
Why would a switch to Windows/Mac be any different for the last type?
It wouldn't. But two things: (1) there's a perception that proprietary vendors are somehow more "professional" or do more in-depth UI research than FOSS vendors, and (2) once people do switch to a proprietary system, they're locked in and it's extremely hard to get them back into the free software community.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 19:11 UTC (Fri) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Only... I got a nice new Lenovo T430 with Win7 pro, 64 bit. I was a good boy and I created restore media. Well done! Then I plopped the disk from my old laptop in the second bay and started dual booting.
All was well -- except that Windows 7 couldn't install the majority of its crucial system updates because it couldn't install them over locked files. But every reboot iteration helped a little there, and I got it up to date.
Then, after two weeks of heavy software development under Windows, I booted the laptop one morning to find it felt it had to check the disk. And yes, the night before I had performed a clean shutdown. And it felt it to repair stuff.
So I let it repair stuff. Turns out that the wifi and "internet time" services got damages. Zut... Let's try that restore media. Zut... It doesn't want to restore: indeed, restore silently fails. Wonderful. Still, deadlines are deadlines, so now laptop is tethered to its cable when doing Windows stuff.
The grass is not greener on the OSX side, either, where a regular OS update made my Mac Mini unbootable. Fortunately, that still came with OS dvd's, so I could reinstall, which is impossible with the Win7 partition on the T430.
Software sucks, hardware sucks, prices are doubling, pleasures are dwindling and nothing is as it should be!
Posted Nov 13, 2012 13:04 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576)
Well it's a good think Linux runs tickety-boo when your disk starts returning bad data.
>All was well -- except that Windows 7 couldn't install the majority of its crucial system updates because it couldn't install them over locked files. But every reboot iteration helped a little there, and I got it up to date.
I imagine many people here don't have direct recent experience of Windows Update; suffice it to say that the above is a major exaggeration. Windows does indeed still have the crazy file locking semantics and has no equivalent to ksplice, so some updates will still require a reboot, but this talk of 'reboot cycles' is a tired old canard. The only Linux distribution I have recent 'desktop' experience of is Ubuntu, and that pops up 'reboot required' reminders somewhat more often than Windows does.)
Posted Nov 13, 2012 13:31 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
No, my hardware didn't fail Windows failed. The disk wasn't actually broken, Windows 7 was broken.
And no, Nye, I did not lie about the windows update problems. I did not exaggerate, let alone majorly.
It was exactly as I described. On starting the laptop after unboxing, the update center informed me that it needed to install a few dozen updates, and I said Ok. Then it informed me that it needed to reboot, and I said Ok. Then it tried to apply the updates, failed, and on showing the desktop told me it had crucial updates to apply I said Ok, and it asked me to reboot, and I said Ok -- rinse and repeat until Windows was satisfied.
Posted Nov 15, 2012 19:24 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)
OS X (10.7 Lion) is pretty painful for me at the moment because my Macbook Air WiFi goes mad man times a day - usually turning WiFi on and off, or rebooting, or power cycling the WAP, will fix it. I resorted to installing a driver from previous OS X version just to improve the WiFi. Ultimately I think it's that OS X doesn't like working with my Asus WAP (RT-N10), which works fine with a couple of iOS devices, some Windows laptops, etc. There's a 150 page thread on the Apple forums about this WiFi issue with Lion.
Ironically enough, I got this WAP because of an iPad 3 having WiFi problems with a WRT54G running Tomato.
Macs are quite nice in some ways as a reasonably sane Unix environment that also has nice software you can buy if you want, plus a lot of open source software - but in my experience the Apple WiFi support is truly awful. I suspect Apple only tests with their own Airport WAPs.
Posted Nov 15, 2012 19:27 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)
If you are having unexplained file corruption, it could be a RAM error as well, of course.
Posted Nov 12, 2012 17:18 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285)
Mac OS X was a large change from OS 9 but since then its desktop has remained pretty much the same. It has added a few features and changed a few minor things but I could be just as comfortable using OS 10.3 as 10.7. (10.0, .1 and .2 were a bit too clunky).
Posted Nov 9, 2012 15:06 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
Posted Nov 24, 2012 7:21 UTC (Sat) by steffen780 (guest, #68142)
PS: Well, "no trouble" may be exaggerated, but I certainly managed to complete what should be trivial tasks like shutting down without assistance.
Posted Nov 24, 2012 9:01 UTC (Sat) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 15:20 UTC (Fri) by jond (subscriber, #37669)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 20:12 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 22:32 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Your second point (again, just like in Gnome 1 --> 2) should read "Some technically-savvy people dislike GNOME 3 and are able to switch to XFCE, KDE, or whatever. I'm in this camp, complain loudly on LWN and $ELSEWHERE, and will quietly switch back to Gnome once I get bored with $REPLACEMENT." (Yes, Linus famously decreed Gnome 2 was useless junk when it came out. Now he complains Gnome 3 is different...).
Posted Nov 10, 2012 0:09 UTC (Sat) by luya (subscriber, #50741)
Posted Nov 10, 2012 1:48 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
and will quietly switch back to Gnome once I get bored with $REPLACEMENT
Very unlikely. I've been a dedicated XFCE user for many years and see no reason to abandon it.
I'm not complaining about GNOME 3 for my own sake... I don't use it. However, it's going to be wrenching for my users (I'll probably switch them to XFCE instead) and I believe it will drive quite a few people away from Linux altogether.
Posted Nov 22, 2012 16:30 UTC (Thu) by TRauMa (guest, #16483)
The loud complainers
Posted Nov 9, 2012 14:19 UTC (Fri) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
I'm using FVWM now.
At that time I went for GNOME mainly for two reasons: QT licensing issues and the promise of less bloat. Ironically, the GNOME of today is even more bloated than KDE, which is quite a feat.
(This isn't intended as offense: I do realize that one person's bloat are the other person's features, and I wouldn't dare to force anyone not to use GNOME, as much as I woldn't like to be forced to use GNOME -- or dbus or whatever).
The feature creep (why has the desktop environment to take over the "mounting" of devices? That' the job of the OS, I thought?) downright scares me.
(I do agree on your other points).
Posted Nov 9, 2012 15:42 UTC (Fri) by dcbw (guest, #50562)
"Mounting a file system into the root file system involves a certain degree of configuration and as such is subject to whatever preferences an user might have. gnome-mount allows the user to control the mount point location, the mount options and what file system to use for mounting a file system. The settings are read from the gconf database (which is per-user) and can also be overridden on the command line using the appropriate parameters."
If you accept that mounting a volume can (a) have user-specific preferences and (b) have specific permissions, then something has to talk to the user session to make those determinations. And a root process reading user settings usually runs afoul of security policy, hence the user-session mounting utilities.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 22:10 UTC (Fri) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
Most definitely, totally agree. But then, it's a problem to be fixed at the system level, and to try to provide a dektop-independent interface for desktop environments to hook-in -- instead of kludging it at the desktop level.
For one data point, I just finished "fixing" the Gnome metadata of one user: the emblems and comments disappeared just because this user's harddisk changed and the metadata are tucked away in some obscure database in the home directory... tied to the disk's UUID. Eek!
Look, I do understand that the desktop folks want to get things done, but this stacking up of leaky abstraction on top of leaky abstraction just scares me. I prefer to stay clear of that and to think of better alternatives -- if there are any. That's all.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 22:41 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Nov 10, 2012 0:08 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
These days I don't even bother trying to report bugs in udisks. The maintainer just doesn't care.
Sorry, this is not good maintenance.
Posted Nov 12, 2012 17:30 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285)
upower is a critical system daemon these days because Gnome won't suspend the laptop on lid close without it. But of course, any tiny difference in sysfs configuration and it dies. It either crashes or does a g_error log and exit. Now who thought doing abort in a power management daemon was a good idea?
This has caused me to have a drained laptop at least three times.
Posted Nov 11, 2012 15:33 UTC (Sun) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 18:55 UTC (Fri) by LightDot (guest, #73140)
Anyway, this kind of stance produced Mate, Cinnamon, Nemo, etc., so all is well, open source works as intended. Significant parts of Gnome user and developer base dislike the way project is run enough to spring numerous forks, which are gaining serious momentum too.
Code talks, bs walks... I personally think code is doing the talking and actual walking here, BS is staying put. :p ;)
Heh. And I actually like many things about Gnome-shell. Imagine all those that don't...
Posted Nov 10, 2012 0:24 UTC (Sat) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
How did you know that given that they were silent about it? I was among those who used Gnome 1 and did not like Gnome 2. I could never start to use it comfortably and silently switched to KDE in the end. I am sure a lot people have silently switched to another DE as well.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 13:20 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
If you disagree that fallback mode was a fallback when hardware support was not available: it is called fallback mode; customization was not impossible, but the default obviously had to look like GNOME 3. Various applets were ported during 3.2. Various work still went into it in later versions (ibus).
Posted Nov 9, 2012 14:14 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 20:20 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Unfortunately, it seems that various other projects have specific support to make fallback mode work. So initially I was happy that as a side-benefit people would be able to get a GNOME 2 experience. At the moment I'm doubting if it is feasible because it involves way more than just gnome-panel and metacity.
To give a bit more concrete insight: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=fallback. That is the tracker bug.
BTW: Fallback mode has been discussed during the development of 3.4 already. Only since 2-3 weeks I heard that Unity apparently depends on various fallback mode bits.
So sometimes things are not intended in a bad way, but they can easily be interpreted as such. E.g. "GNOME fallback removal to kill Unity".. while in practice we (at least me) had no idea despite having discussed this for 6+ months. For the Unity case we did ask Canonical before doing an announcement... though we work in the open so official announcement is often way later than sites reporting it as news.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 21:58 UTC (Fri) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019)
It looks like LXDE and Xfce do as well.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 21:40 UTC (Fri) by gpoo (subscriber, #56055)
"Compile a list of gnome-shell extensions that can help people who prefer the GNOME 2 UX #685744" (which points to https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685744).
That is besides of people who want to take care of gnome-panel et al. However, I really doubt there will be people stepping up to help with those packages, considering the many calls for help in the last 2 years. I would like to be proven wrong, though.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 22:01 UTC (Fri) by gpoo (subscriber, #56055)
In the last 2,5 years there are just very few patches submitted to gnome-panel, and only one (yes, 1) has been rejected for the reason given in the paragraph. Which is the following one: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674580
There were others bugs reported before GNOME 3.0 that were declared obsoletes, but those can't count as contributions to provide an alternative UI to GNOME 3.0.
I have been following gnome-panel bugs since I helped to ported it to GTK3. Even back then there was a lot of rant and, as we see today, some people assumed bad intentions, but the truth is that there was almost nobody really stepping up to give a hand.
Posted Nov 22, 2012 16:25 UTC (Thu) by TRauMa (guest, #16483)
Posted Nov 9, 2012 21:26 UTC (Fri) by gpoo (subscriber, #56055)
When the resources are scarce, you have to choose the battles you are going to fight.
There were several calls for people to step up and help to maintaining those bits of code. Guess how many people stepped up.
There are people who say what [project] developers should do, there are people who say they are going to help and there are people who actually help. The last ones are the valuable, everything else is just wishful thinking.
Posted Nov 9, 2012 21:36 UTC (Fri) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963)
Posted Nov 10, 2012 6:11 UTC (Sat) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
Posted Nov 10, 2012 18:24 UTC (Sat) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138)
Posted Nov 10, 2012 19:32 UTC (Sat) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds