Confused [LWN.net]

Confused

Posted Nov 4, 2011 19:29 UTC (Fri) by clump (subscriber, #27801)
In reply to: Confused by drag
Parent article: Rawhide gets GNOME Shell for all display types

Fallback mode supports features the 'normal' mode does not. Static workspaces, for example. This is just one technical difference, and unfortunately the one most important to me.

to post comments

Confused

Posted Nov 4, 2011 21:15 UTC (Fri) by luya (subscriber, #50741) [Link] (12 responses)

You can modify that behaviour through Javascripts Gnome 3 uses.

Confused

Posted Nov 4, 2011 21:27 UTC (Fri) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] (11 responses)

I mainly use fallback-mode, but otherwise I already modify some configs to disable the hot corner. While I'm glad I can make that particular modification, it could get reverted by the package manager.

Confused

Posted Nov 4, 2011 21:43 UTC (Fri) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link] (10 responses)

Not if you implement it as an extension ... there is even one already doing that.

Confused

Posted Nov 4, 2011 21:59 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (9 responses)

Yes. Extensions are extensions, like firefox extensions. It's a scriptable window environment.

I expect that some scripts will need to be updated between major releases, but hopefully Gnome developers will be smart enough to keep required changes to a minimum.

Confused

Posted Nov 5, 2011 13:53 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] (8 responses)

Extensions can do some of the things I like about fallback mode, though to my knowledge not all of the extensions I'd like exist or are properly maintained. I like fallback mode because: I can disable animations, static workspaces, no hot corners, alt+right-click modifies panels, etc.

Perhaps a decent comprimise would be to drop fallback mode, but allow more customisation without needing extensions?

Confused

Posted Nov 5, 2011 15:00 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (7 responses)

There is work ongoing to make an extension infrastructure.

Before various extensions were all imported to GNOME git and maintenance was taken over by one person. Giving a bus factor of one. The new infrastructure around it has as goal to ensure the extensions really can be used in practice. But then you need not only allow multiple extension developers, but also scale the review of them.. extensions can do anything. E.g. abuse the latest kernel root bug.

Confused

Posted Nov 5, 2011 16:53 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] (6 responses)

I certainly respect the work being done with extensions, so I don't wish to diminish it. That said, I don't need extensions when running fallback mode.

Extensions are beautiful for shaping software far beyond its original design. Rather than shape the software, I simply wish to have more control. It would be reasonable to control certain defaults of GNOME Shell, if even only by command line tools, rather than require extensions.

Currently GNOME Shell and its fallback mode aren't equal because I can control more with the latter. Why keep fallback mode around if GNOME Shell can offer the same degree of control?

Does this idea sound reasonable?

Confused

Posted Nov 6, 2011 20:08 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (1 responses)

GNOME shell will never run applets. So technically it'll be different. You could probably do the same within an extension, but nobody within GNOME is focused on providing such an experience. We want to provide the ability to make this possible though.

So there is a reason for keeping panel+applets.

But I think we both agree. Seems logical to 'remove' fallback and extensions + gnome-tweak-tool/dconf is good for people who want more control. Problem is not so much with giving control, but should be clear it is a tweak. Once it is clear that we consider it a tweak, it avoids giving the impression that it is guaranteed always work. A tweak might of course break sometimes, eventhough there is no intention to have bugs in them.

Cannot think of a good example, but maybe networkmanager/pulseaudio. We rely on it, if you do not you're on your own (sort of, this is not the best example).

Note: remove fallback in practice that it just means it is still available, but not taken into account during development. So could become more buggy (e.g. on screen keyboard might only work in gnome-shell, not in gnome-panel). Not sure though how quickly it'll become buggy or unusable. I know that system settings sometimes does things differently (hacks) to ensure it works in both.

Confused

Posted Nov 10, 2011 22:00 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link]

> GNOME shell will never run applets.

Why? If XFCE's panel can import an applet why can't GNOME Shell? Is there some technical limitation, is it purely political or simply a lack of round 'tuits?

Confused

Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:29 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link] (3 responses)

> if even only by command line tools

If thats the way it works then the commands will be undocumented, buggy, and frequently broken by changes. You'd be better off without them in gnome best to convince your Linux distribution that gnome doesn't meet your needs and that you'd rather they not so tightly integrate it so that you could use something else.

Confused

Posted Nov 7, 2011 18:09 UTC (Mon) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link] (2 responses)

I have seen no such proof that tweeks (such as week numbers) behave in a more buggy way than the rest of Gnome 3. Do you have any examples?

Confused

Posted Nov 8, 2011 16:17 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (1 responses)

Focus follows mouse is buggy. But that is since 3.0 and it was improved in 3.2. :)

Confused

Posted Nov 8, 2011 19:28 UTC (Tue) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]

Much is buggy in 3.0. Try suspending with two users logged in for example. Or wonder why screen gets locked when you suspend.

Lots of bugs are fixed in 3.2.