Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Clasen: GNOME 3.7 at the halfway mark
Posted Jan 25, 2013 19:30 UTC (Fri) by tetley80 (guest, #88691)
That's false. Red Hat is directly paying for Gnome 2 maintenance, via maintaining Gnome 2 in both RHEL 5 and RHEL 6.
Well then, the "paid employment" argument is awfully sounding like the main criterion for selecting Gnome 3 as the default in Fedora.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 19:44 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 25, 2013 21:21 UTC (Fri) by tetley80 (guest, #88691)
So then, is the "paid employment" a clearly codified and documented criterion that Fedora officially uses? If not, it indicates that non-technical reasons are being used underhandedly to make decisions on technical matters. Even if it was a documented criterion, wouldn't it amount to discrimination based on non-technical issues? Either way, this type of behavior is certainly not in the spirit of the Fedora community.
It also amounts to letting people loose on a major every-day UI component and putting a blind eye to what they're doing, just because they're getting paid for it.
It's all well and good to propose new things, but to implement major UI regressions is abusing the community's patience. This is yet more evidence towards the view that Fedora is simply an unstable testing ground for future RHEL releases.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 21:55 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:05 UTC (Fri) by tetley80 (guest, #88691)
Technical reasons include: is software X more stable than software Y, or my favorite, does software X have more regressions than Y ?
Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:21 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 1:09 UTC (Sat) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 1:16 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 3:41 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
Why do you think 'nemo' got accepted in fedora?
Becoz nautilus 3.6 took away the features, what people wanted.
This logic applies to cinnamon as well.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 4:34 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 7:44 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
Gnome components are forked so much becoz there is an audience for older versions and people are actively using it. New versions of nautilus should have more functions on top of old features, but instead calling it as unmaintainable and removing the features is not what users want. Now instead of nautilus 3.6, people are willing to stay with nautilus 3.4 with new name 'nemo'. Within a couple of years if the gnome project continue the tradition of removing the core features and thrust some feautres that the devs think is important, I am pretty sure there will complete fork of all the components.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 7:46 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 16:52 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
You don't seem to understand the package review process. FESCo is not involved. All it takes is one package maintainer to review and approve and it is typically upto him or her to determine packaging quality and only that. We don't typically ask the question why at all as part of the review process. Ours concern are usually limited to maintenance and sustainability. They can appeal to Fedora packaging committee to determine whether it conflicts with the packaging guidelines and in this case, there was a request to FPC and they determined that Cinnamon didn't conflict. The relevant packaging guidelines are at
There is really nothing stopping an older version of GCC from going in and Fedora does that now and then for compatibility. Fedora repositories have a lot of forked components and they are accepted on a routine basis. If a forked version of GCC gets submitted for review, it takes just one maintainer to review and approve it unless someone objects and in that case, it is upto FPC and they might escalate all the way to FESCo or even Fedora Board but such instances are very rare.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 5:44 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 5:41 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 14:43 UTC (Sat) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
One can claim that the product is now different and that you can't compare the old product with the new one (that conveniently uses the old product's name), but to the person thinking that they're getting an update of the same thing, it's a step backwards.
This means that when we try and put a modern distribution in front of people, instead of explaining how it is mostly the same (and thus what they are used to themselves) but better, we now have to explain why it is different and things that used to work no longer do so.
Frequent blog posts by people pretending to be brand strategists and visionaries don't actually placate user concerns because the users are mostly concerned with whether stuff does what they need it to, not whether the "positioning" of the software is right according to current market trends, or whatever.
After all, no amount of blogging can make something work again or even work in the first place.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 15:38 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 16:37 UTC (Sat) by sorokin (subscriber, #88478)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 17:09 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 18:10 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 18:33 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 19:19 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
And, whenever you remove a feature from a large project, no matter how meaningless or crappy, you will find somebody who cares.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 20:54 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 21:18 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
By this sense, changing from GNOME 3 to Cinnamon would be a regression.
No. If things is mostly the same but has different name people expect that some features will not be available. When something is billed as "pure upgrade" but it removes features - people become quite vocal. Is it fair? No. But that's life. Deal with it.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 21:29 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 27, 2013 16:16 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Sounds like a meaningful conversation to me. Where's the confusion?
Posted Jan 28, 2013 22:51 UTC (Mon) by sorokin (subscriber, #88478)
In GNOME -- yes. In other reasonable projects that is simple not true. I would say that for most projects that is not true.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 16:56 UTC (Sat) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
You can make the case that the lack of a gold exhaust pipe on a hypothetical electric car - let's call it the Ford Luxury - is not a regression since its non-electric predecessor - also called the Ford Luxury - needed such a thing, whereas no-one is really going to miss it on the electric model. The argument in such cases is that technology has made something obsolete and thus the need to choose between, say, gold and steel has been eliminated.
The problem is that the view (or excuse) that technology has made something obsolete is brought out far too often. GNOME 2 won't let you do something that GNOME 1 did? It's because it's all better, that's why! When the developers famously closed bugs against GNOME 1 because GNOME 2 was new and different (http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html), they illustrated precisely this phenomenon.
People want the benefit of brand recognition but also the benefit of not having their current product compared to the previous one, even though having the same name on the product is inevitably going to invite such comparisons. If you want to enjoy the former benefit, you have to relinquish the latter.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 17:10 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 27, 2013 15:44 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
Perhaps launcher buttons couldn't be transparent before and the background setting was a workaround that was made obsolete, just like the absence of an exhaust pipe on a hypothetical car whose predecessor required one. Since the result is almost completely superior, there's little reason to complain about it, but that almost certainly cannot be said for many consequences of these big product upgrades.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 16:27 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 27, 2013 17:52 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
I also noted that if a feature goes away because it is obsolete - to take an ancient example that once applied to some desktop systems, you don't have to allocate memory manually to a process because the system now does that for you - you can ignore the regression because nothing that anyone was doing before that they can no longer do now (say, allocate a process size of N) is anything they still need to be able to do (because the system will give the process N if it asks for it). Since there is no longer any benefit in even being able to do those obsolete things, there's no general functional regression (you can still run that process).
None of this has anything to do with whether I "like the changes". The issue I have is the way that people deny the experiences of the users by playing games with definitions of what the system was and is, as if the users were supposed to care more about the brand gymnastics than the features actually being delivered.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 14:04 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576)
Clearly, everything you say is therefore correct. It must be wonderful to know that you are so much better at everything than anyone else. I hope you enjoy your future career in law, and wish you all the best.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 16:05 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 16:17 UTC (Mon) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
With Gnome 2 I was able to control my CPU governors with a graphical applet.
With Gnone 3 there is no applet and I can't control my CPU governors through the GUI.
For me it's simply a regression.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 16:40 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 17:02 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
Perhaps there isn't an "applet" but there is an extension, available through the extensions.gnome.org website.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 18:52 UTC (Mon) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
You're right. The extension is here : https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/444/cpu-freq/
It didn't exist six months ago and I'm glad someone took the pain to create it. I retract my comment about this regression :)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 20:31 UTC (Sat) by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
Posted Jan 27, 2013 21:38 UTC (Sun) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
Here's the problem with that.
Pretty much any change (short of a crash fix) will qualify as breaking someone's workflow -- ie "it's different than what I'm used to"
It's been said many times over in this thread; nobody's forcing you to update anything. Your three-year-old Fedora/OSX/Windows/DOS/whatever installation works as well (and identically) today as the day it was released. Heck, go with something like RHEL and it'll be continually supported for a decade.
But don't complain about it lacking $randomfeature, because in the real world nothing is independent.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 7:21 UTC (Mon) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028)
It is a cop out to say that you can't have that in other UIs.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 7:40 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:14 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:50 UTC (Fri) by tetley80 (guest, #88691)
I can understand the need for flexibility, but the use of a "documented criterion" cannot be simply dismissed as "bureaucratic". If one does not have good and well thought basis for making decisions, then one gets arbitrary decisions which can lead to strife, such as UI regressions.
If "documented criterions" did not work, nations wouldn't have laws and constitutions.
There is obviously a trade-off between codification and flexibility. However, in this case it is my strong opinion that too much flexibility in the UI area has provided a disservice to the Fedora community.
A nice condescending comment. I do not wish for this discussion to degenerate into a flame fest, so I will not entertain this further.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 23:16 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
You keep using that phrase as if it means something other than "I don't like this UI", but I don't know what.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 0:04 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
You know, stuff like this. Changing workspaces took one mouse click before and one view change (using GUI). Now it takes several, including a lot more mouse travel. Desktop visibility is zero, which was not the case before. The amount of pixels that change when working remotely using VNC has been significantly increased, which makes things even slower over poor links. It is practicality impossible to move items on the panel or define new panels using techniques available for at least two decades. Etc.
The _measurable_ stuff.
As I pointed out numerous times, Gnome 3 overview is essentially an implementation of RFC1925(6). That in itself is a regression, because everything is one step further away.
Unfortunately, nobody in Gnome development team is brave enough to acknowledge any of these facts. Instead, we are getting an Ultralite Gnome Classic, which just looks a bit like "classic", but it can't do most of the stuff that was possible before.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 8:49 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Learned loaded question in another article :)
Posted Feb 2, 2013 3:46 UTC (Sat) by fandingo (subscriber, #67019)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 20:40 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
If you don't like GNOME 3 Shell just stand up and say so, no need to beat around the bush.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds