Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
I think it's been hard for the Gnome guys, because they really, really love modern mode, because that's where their hearts are. But they've done a great job putting together classic mode for us, and I think it's going to keep people working on RHEL 5, 6 and 7 who don't want to retrain their fingers each time they switch operating systems -- I think classic mode's going to be really helpful for them.
Posted Jun 13, 2013 21:32 UTC (Thu)
by cyperpunks (subscriber, #39406)
[Link] (135 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 2:37 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (128 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 7:04 UTC (Fri)
by alexl (subscriber, #19068)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 7:08 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 7:18 UTC (Fri)
by dsommers (subscriber, #55274)
[Link] (125 responses)
Red Hat initiates a lot of good projects, I'll grant you that. But Red Hat is probably not the company behind GNOME. They contribute a lot to GNOME though, as well as many other projects. The first Red Hat based distribution with GNOME preview was Red Hat Linux 5.1 (not Red Hat Enterprise Linux) [1] which was released May 22, 1998 [2].
The GNOME Project was started in 1997 by two then university students, Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena [3]. In 1999, de Icaza, along with Nat Friedman, co-founded Helix Code, a GNOME-oriented free software company that employed a large number of other GNOME hackers. In 2001, Helix Code, later renamed Ximian ... In August 2003, Ximian was acquired by Novell. [4]
Just to get the history straight ...
[1] <http://linuxgazette.net/165/laycock.html>
Posted Jun 14, 2013 7:41 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (104 responses)
My point being this: Red Hat _pays_ folks to write Gnome. It is their default desktop environment.
PS. Just because other companies do that too does not mean Red Hat is not behind it.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 8:46 UTC (Fri)
by dsommers (subscriber, #55274)
[Link] (103 responses)
In 2010 this GNOME census [1] presentation was given. And it surely puts Red Hat high up in the contributors list, but it is actually *not* the biggest player in this game all in all. Red Hat is given credit for 16.30% of the commits, while there are 16.94% of unidentifiable companies (I presume) and 23.45% of the commits were from VOLUNTEERS. These three groups sums up to ~57% of all commits to the GNOME project. Red Hat's contribution in this context is a little bit less than 1/3 of the top 3. And then you have ~43% of commits from contributors which is not among the top 3.
So to say that Red Hat is behind GNOME is fairly unfair to the majority of contributors. I'm sure Red Hat is proud of their GNOME contributions, but they probably don't want (or need) to take the glory from the other contributors as well.
[1] <http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/>
Posted Jun 14, 2013 9:11 UTC (Fri)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (10 responses)
16,30 % of commits is huge and it undercounts all the work done by third parties because of their stake in the RHEL/Centos/Fedora ecosystem, all the work Red Hat employees declare as "volunteer" (but would they still be as interested in GNOME if they were not involved with it at work? when Nokia switched from GTK to QT lots of people in the Nokia ecosystem discovered they weren't that interested in GNOME anymore), all the synergies between Red Hat GNOME committers and Red Hat people working on other layers of the software stack.
Besides, the second big corporate partner is Suse (10,44%), but Suse customers ask it to diverge as little as possible from Red Hat core choices (they want the ability so switch supplier without retraining), any Red Hat divestment would be followed by a similar move Suse-side.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 10:03 UTC (Fri)
by ovitters (guest, #27950)
[Link] (9 responses)
That a maintainer can set direction for their module is pretty common.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 11:21 UTC (Fri)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (8 responses)
The commit stats clearly show Enterprise Linux distributions have a key stake in GNOME. Together Red Hat and Suse pay directly for more than 25% of the GNOME work (not counting the work of affiliates). No other entity is ready to pay enough people to work on it, to manage more than 5% of commits.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 11:32 UTC (Fri)
by ovitters (guest, #27950)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:09 UTC (Fri)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:27 UTC (Fri)
by ovitters (guest, #27950)
[Link] (3 responses)
To be clear: The entity having veto power is GNOME board and GNOME release team. I am a member of the release team. I am pretty aware of the rules and how things are done.
I have never seen anything about "veto power". I've asked you to back this up various times, you haven't shown anything.
The only point you could make is that they've hired maintainers, as I said before. However, that is not "veto power".
So please back up your claims.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 14:23 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 16, 2013 22:41 UTC (Sun)
by dag- (guest, #30207)
[Link] (1 responses)
Makes sense, since that's what they have to support for the next 13 years (starting from GA).
But that doesn't mean Red Hat has veto powers over Gnome (either the project, or the source code). They may have influence, but influence is still not veto power...
Posted Jun 16, 2013 22:53 UTC (Sun)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:38 UTC (Fri)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 18:45 UTC (Wed)
by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492)
[Link]
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
Posted Jun 14, 2013 9:22 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (91 responses)
Red Hat shipping Gnome in classic mode in RHEL7 is roughly the equivalent of Microsoft shipping Windows 8 in desktop mode, after spending all the years developing the tiles.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:56 UTC (Fri)
by dsommers (subscriber, #55274)
[Link] (90 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:32 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (70 responses)
Now you are being hilarious. The whole paradigm of Gnome 3 is the overview thing. The new "distraction free philosophy" of the desktop or some such nonsense. It is considered so valuable by Red Hat that they decided to ship a cut down Gnome 2 look instead. Yeah.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:51 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (69 responses)
Says who? None of the design documents from GNOME project focus on this as a primary aspect.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:10 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (31 responses)
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design#Activities_Overview
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:28 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (30 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:55 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (29 responses)
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design#Goals_and_advant...
The paradigm of Gnome 3 (which is to provide distraction free environment, whatever is that supposed to mean) absolutely depends on the existence of overview (in the mind of Gnome developers). In fact, dash is an artefact in overview only. Notification are just another type of overview (as you cannot see them in normal view at all once they magically disappear).
Coming back to the original point. Amazing efforts have been expended to provide this supposed distraction free environment, only to default to distraction abundant environment in RHEL7 (taskbar, applications, places, poor replacement for workspace switcher etc.) to poor users. I'm sure their heads are going to explode now, given they won't be distraction free. :-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:00 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:40 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 6:56 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (4 responses)
GNOME project provided classic mode (which itself is just a bunch of extensions) to meet the needs of users who prefer the traditional UI elements and this matches the nature of RHEL. It demonstrates the flexibility of GNOME Shell and power of extensions to virtually modify any UI element and they are much more easier to develop compared to the panel applets in GNOME 2.x. The proof is in the sheer number of extensions that do things GNOME 2.x never could and I use several of them.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:18 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (3 responses)
Curious. A whole lot of GNOME devs back when extensions were introduced were saying they were against them, that they 'diluted the GNOME brand', that you should never rely on them and that they'd get broken as often as possible, and that they'd try to get them removed as soon as possible.
And now all of a sudden it's 'one of the best parts of GNOME 3'. I see some divergence of opinion here...
Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:55 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 15:38 UTC (Mon)
by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 23:16 UTC (Wed)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:06 UTC (Sat)
by alankila (guest, #47141)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:16 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 23:29 UTC (Sat)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:13 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (18 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:44 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:56 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (16 responses)
The fact that GNOME Shell was designed to provide the flexibility to use a GNOME Shell extension hosted by GNOME project itself proves your point that overview is the primary paradigm? Also, the dash to dock just lets the user access the dash directly without the overview for users who prefer that model. It doesn't change the nature of the dash into a full blown panel or "taskbar".
Posted Jun 15, 2013 8:55 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (15 responses)
"The separation of the overview from the normal window view is a reflection of users' natural focus-switching behaviour. It aims to ensure that users are not distracted when they are occupied with a task and to give them quick access to a streamlined focus-switching interface when they need one. A key feature of the overview is that it allows a user to optionally appraise their current activities prior to making a decision on where to turn their focus to next."
Look, we can do this back and forth all day. Few facts:
- Gnome 3 stated some "design goals" (i.e. philosophy)
Conclusion: practical usability is far more important than forcing users' hand into nebulous philosophical claims. I agree.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:12 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Posted Jun 16, 2013 21:47 UTC (Sun)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 6:51 UTC (Mon)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 7:26 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:08 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:12 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:34 UTC (Tue)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
But the developers are still valuable enough to retain. Red Hat would prefer them not to leave in a snit.
You can try to argue against that. But isn't this all pretty obvious?
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:37 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (7 responses)
In the real world, occasionally when you fund something, you get a lemon. It happens. So, when you get handed that lemon, what do you do? You make lemonade (read: Gnome Classic).
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:43 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:58 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (5 responses)
If some random YouTube reviewer that didn't understand what classic mode was wrote that, I would say fine - the guy doesn't know any better. But you know better, because, as you pointed out out on these very pages, classic mode is just a bunch of extensions thrown together, so that the UI looks a bit like Gnome 2 (and this is what we are talking about here - the UI paradigm shipped by default in RHEL7).
In terms of the platform development, the horse has bolted. Gnome 3 is the new platform (the one Red Hat are behind anyway), so they have to work with what they have (i.e. paid to be built). Saying "only fund classic mode going forward" is a complete nonsense statement for an openly and dedicatedly open source company like Red Hat. And you know it.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:05 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:15 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
Red Hat will continue to finance open source because they think they can get what they want cheaper that way. This, however, does not mean that everything they get a as a result will be to their liking. Or that they will risk exposing their _paying_ customers to it. This is where money talks.
Of course, you know all this. You are just trying to defend you position with disingenuous statements now.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:18 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
Not all all. I explicitly said commercial validation is important but the focus on only that is too narrow and reeks of proprietary vendors and you need to understand and ack the community value as well.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:44 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (1 responses)
> If they didn't think the default mode for GNOME Shell was useful, they wouldn't be funding it.
Clearly, based on a alternative default UI choice in RHEL7, default mode (overview paradigm) is not what they find useful. Otherwise, they would be promoting as the "best since sliced bread, what Microsoft did with tiles, kinda thingy".
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:49 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 10:17 UTC (Sat)
by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
[Link] (36 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 16:46 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (35 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:06 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (30 responses)
How ironic. We've had this conversation before... about KDE4. But you were defending KDE, and saying that Gnome2 had been just as disruptive. I maintained that Gnome2 was always reasonably well done, if slightly spartan, at first, but that KDE4 was just terrible. Gnome3-shell is worse than anything which has ever come before. Gnome2 is as polished as ever. I haven't kept up with KDE4. But if it came down to Gnome3-shell or KDE4 for my users, and KDE4 didn't pan out for some reason... then.. well... there's always FVWM2 and AnotherLevel. (And no, I can't believe I said that. ;-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:11 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (29 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:47 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (11 responses)
OK. So I'll make another prediction. Gnome-shell will adapt or die. File that away and hold it as a hole card for some future year. As a pessimist, I'm generally pretty happy to be proven wrong. ;-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:06 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:25 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:32 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:18 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:32 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 20:08 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 20:24 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 22:09 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
That's why I happily transitioned from KDE3 to KDE4.
I gather a lot of KDE's troubles were because KDE 4.ZERO was pushed onto users, when the devs were quite open that ".0 status means the API is frozen", not that KDE4 was ready for real use.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 16, 2013 21:38 UTC (Sun)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:47 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jun 16, 2013 23:51 UTC (Sun)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
As I pointed out elsewhere, perhaps the most significant problem for the KDE and GNOME developers is not what these environments can do or support but how they are delivered to users by default, especially when those users expect something else and are not willing to experience a learning curve for the sake of it (maybe because they're only getting version upgrades infrequently, not at every opportunity, and thus experience the resulting big paradigm change as a sudden shock).
Still, I think it is regrettable that only as various environments reach their x.7 release or so (where x is the controversial major version number) are they regarded as picking up from where the previous major version series left off.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:29 UTC (Sat)
by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
[Link] (1 responses)
@rahul
>KDE 4 has settled down and users have accepted it.
If there was a choice people shall opt for it. Shoving down the throat with an not-so-interesting interface is what gnome users are facing right now.
>3.8 apparently has convinced some users that GNOME Shell isn't such an issue after all.
Do you have any base for your assertion?
> I suspect we will see more of that with time.
>That is a pretty lame prediction. It essentially restates the basic premise of evolution.
>sbergman27 : Gnome-shell will adapt or die.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:37 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Let me stop you right there. I don't think GNOME Shell or GNOME is always right at all. They have made a lot of decisions which they themselves recognize as wrong and reverted and some I still think they have a long way to go but when I see people pretending that some change is universally hated or has no chance at all, I step it to point out, that isn't the case (be it KDE 4, GNOME 3 or Anaconda UI) and I am willing to take the heat for it. I don't expect that "bitching" about anything will solve any of your problems but hey, it is a free world.
Posted Jun 16, 2013 13:57 UTC (Sun)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (11 responses)
Further, the UI changes in GNOME 2 came about *BECAUSE OF* systematic, semi-scientific HCI testing, initiated by Sun, which led to a coherent HIG for GNOME. The GNOME people had objective *EVIDENCE* that the GNOME 2 UI changes significantly improved things.
I've asked here several times before, where are the HCI studies that justified the GNOME 3 UI changes? Not yet received a pointer to any such studies.
Posted Jun 16, 2013 17:49 UTC (Sun)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:16 UTC (Mon)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (9 responses)
Where were the HCI studies on GNOME 2 that provided the objective evidence and rationale for the GNOME 3 UI changes?
Posted Jun 17, 2013 16:52 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 16:56 UTC (Mon)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 17:18 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:10 UTC (Mon)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (5 responses)
Where were the HCI¹ studies on GNOME 2 that provided the objective evidence and rationale for the GNOME 3 UI changes?
There's no need for a politician-like evasive answer, just "I don't know of any" or "Here's the link: ..." will do.
1. Or any other systematically obtained data or evidence.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:19 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:21 UTC (Mon)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:45 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 21:04 UTC (Mon)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
… As for HCI studies, I suspect you already know the answer. It was a one off thing funded by Sun
Today you seem to claim you do know of some relevant to the GNOME2 → GNOME3 changes. So, as you have only just learned of them, you must have this information close to hand. Why be so unhelpful as to refuse to pass along a more exact pointer to something that surely must be almost at your fingertips?
In other comments in this article you seem willing to go into detail about and/or are quite confident you understand: what the design decisions were for the GNOME3 UI; what you have heard from the GNOME designers; why RedHat fund GNOME; etc. Why suddenly would you become so coy on the evidence question?
As of this point, there is still no answer to my question:
with any pointer to any objective evidence.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 21:12 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2013 19:26 UTC (Fri)
by strycat (guest, #91546)
[Link] (2 responses)
Many of us recognize that because KDE is less popular than Gnome it just doesn't have the manpower to have good viable forks and alternatives grow. Gnome on the other hand has legions of coders who have made everything from Gnome Classic to Gnome Cinnamon.
So for us KDE people we're stuck with either using the inferior KDE 4, switching to the even more inferior Gnome, or go with something that is being maintained by just one person.
I accept these are the choices, but please don't say we've accepted KDE 4.
Posted Jun 21, 2013 20:39 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (1 responses)
As someone who's been running it for several years before 4.0, I have to say that I don't know what is missing from KDE 4 that was there in KDE 3
Posted Jun 25, 2013 19:27 UTC (Tue)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:36 UTC (Sat)
by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:55 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
To disprove your claim, all you need is a sample of one but you can go beyond that very easily. Look at Fedoraforum polls on which UI majority users preferred.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:23 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:28 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 17, 2013 6:12 UTC (Mon)
by russell (guest, #10458)
[Link] (18 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:52 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 15:50 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (2 responses)
It's really too bad we don't have user polls available here. The Gnome3 shell and Fedora folks have managed to alienate most of Gnome's user-base. Sure, one can point to current Fedora users as a source of people who are not quite so averse to Gnome3 shell. But Fedora's user share has, itself, dropped precipitously since its inception of Gnome3 shell.
I would never have guessed, 5 years ago, that the entire Linux desktop effort would self destruct in just a few years. Unity. Gnome3 shell. It's a wasteland out there today. Gnome 2.32 is as excellent as it ever was. And the Mint/Cinnamon/Mate guys are doing their best with limited resources.
On Unix/Linux servers, everything's a file. But aside from that, on the Linux desktop, everything's a phone.
Posted Jun 19, 2013 3:18 UTC (Wed)
by jmorris42 (guest, #2203)
[Link] (1 responses)
What a difference a few years make. Apple didn't turn the Mac into an iProduct, Microsoft is watching Windows 8 become the biggest failure since Windows ME (Bob is still their biggest bomb though.) and GNOME3 utterly failed to convince anyone it was a viable desktop. I was asking a long time ago whether RedHat would be dumb enough to try passing it off on their actual paying customers. Now we know the answer, no they aren't.
With a little luck, perhaps the madness that befell our industry is passing. Microsoft is restoring the Start button and if they don't provide an actual menu behind it other certainly will. Now we know it will be at least RHEL8 before GNOME Shell could be inflicted on corporate Linux desktop users and by it might not even exist. People might finally be realizing that desktops and tablets are not interchangable. Ubuntu still hasn't figured it out, but they are trying really hard to get on tablets so maybe Unity will work for em.
Posted Jun 20, 2013 17:02 UTC (Thu)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
Posted Jun 17, 2013 22:19 UTC (Mon)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link] (1 responses)
GNOME 3 was released in 2011 and we are now all of a sudden seeing a working Classic UI.
Not so long ago GNOME devs were talking about dropping fallback/classic entirely (yeah, because everyone loves shell so much).
You can see how people would think that RedHat is far more influential to GNOME than actual users right?
Posted Jun 17, 2013 22:31 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2013 1:47 UTC (Wed)
by russell (guest, #10458)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 2:00 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (9 responses)
You should be very careful with asserting number of users. The statistics page you are linking to makes this disclaimer
"Currently, there is no reliable way to determine the total number of Linux users, or even count the total number of users of any Linux distribution which does not have a mandatory per user registration process."
Fedora has also changed how it tracks connections so you will have to have a lot more qualifiers to add. Besides, a substantial number of RHEL customers don't run GNOME at all.
Posted Jun 19, 2013 3:56 UTC (Wed)
by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
[Link] (3 responses)
Why do you bring RHEL here? Its totally irrelevant to Fedora statistics.
> Fedora has also changed how it tracks connections so you will have to have a lot more qualifiers to add.
Like a million? Maybe.
I would say significant number of Fedora/Ubuntu users ran away to Linux mint and Arch Linux.
Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:10 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
It appears you missed the context. I am replying to a post that talks about both RHEL users and Fedora statistics.
"Still the usage statistics are low."
Fedora statistics on that page cannot track usage or users but only unique IP connections directly made to the public mirror manager for updates. Nothing more. There are dozens of different ways that these numbers can be undercounted or overcounted. It can vaguely show some general trends. Don't try to read too much into it.
Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:25 UTC (Wed)
by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:37 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:04 UTC (Wed)
by russell (guest, #10458)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:24 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 15:43 UTC (Wed)
by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2013 16:51 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2013 17:14 UTC (Wed)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link]
In an effort to inhabit your headspace, and to have some empathy for your point of view...I'm going to go ahead and horribly misuse an analogy similar to the way you are misusing these numbers in a sincere effort to communicate with you at your level.
Stop trying to use a turkey baster to put gas in your car. Turkey basters are not gas cans... in the same way these stats are not market penetration numbers.
The small unfeeling reptilian part of my brain would be overjoyed if Fedora was doing a mandatory phone home to get solid numbers for client usage..like Canonical introduced in 2010 in oem pre-installs when it started to require the canonical-census package be installed and active. Which interestingly enough we've never actually seen the data from that market penetration tool publicly discussed or even cited as part of marketing materials before it was taken out back and shot. Funny that. Or not so funny that depending on your sense of humor I guess.
But the evolved human part of my brain, the part that cares about other people and not just calculation accuracy, balks at the idea of tracking fedora clients. Just because we have the ability to track, does not make it ethical to do so. Oh yes something like a fedora-census application that was installed by default and pinged the fedora mothership every day would be an absolutely fantastic market analytics tool and at the same time be an absolutely horrid affront to user privacy. And with that trade-off in mind, I'll live with the ambiguous fedora unique ip numbers and the untrendable nature, thank you very much.
That being said, I've invested a non-zero amount of time trying to squeeze useful information out of the fedora numbers as well as other public datasets. Getting a handle on any real-world usage of any linux distribution is an impossible problem at the moment. Made worse by the fact that default user agent strings in firefox and chrome don't list linux vendor any longer. There is a reason why "unknown linux" is the highest linux population in the wikimedia stats for over a year now. The default user agent strings are just not unique enough any longer to see the difference between active linux desktop releases. Everything comes up as "unknown" because the vendor is no longer typically encoded in the useragent string. Wikimedia will count active opensuse and fedora release clients as "unknown linux" unless a user delibrately changes the default user string. I've know of no statistically significant way to trend a specific distribution flavor in day-to-day sampling interactions let-alone attempt to trend relative penetration of one distro to another. Every single set of numbers I've seen have gaping head wounds in the viability of the methodology to provide sensible estimates.
Posted Jun 19, 2013 8:45 UTC (Wed)
by kigurai (guest, #85475)
[Link]
Also notice that the repository count took a just as big skydive between Fedora 8 and 9 as well.
Looking at the unique IP's to connect to fedoraproject.org there is nothing that indicates that Fedora has lost users. Just to take another metric as "counter-proof".
If you try hard enough, anything can be shown by statistics. :)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 8:54 UTC (Fri)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (19 responses)
As was expressed euphemistically the GNOME people heart is elsewhere.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 10:00 UTC (Fri)
by ovitters (guest, #27950)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:47 UTC (Fri)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 20:17 UTC (Fri)
by cyperpunks (subscriber, #39406)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 20:26 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:17 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:57 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:37 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:40 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 22:26 UTC (Sat)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:53 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (3 responses)
Some studies suggest that they increase the risk of strokes and aneurysms by up to 40%. They definitely increase cranial blood pressure, which seems like an extremely unwise thing to voluntarily do to yourself to me.
More to the point, they're uncomfortable and don't even look very nice. Why *are* people still wearing modified 16th-century Hungarian (or was it Czech?) war garb anyway?
Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:28 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
Can that be expressed in cases per 1000 or similar? That kind of statistic is totally uninformative, misleading even, without knowing the magnitude of the values involved. It might be that chances of death by tie are still substantially smaller than getting hit by a bus, for example.
> More to the point, they're uncomfortable and don't even look very nice. Why *are* people still wearing modified 16th-century Hungarian (or was it Czech?) war garb anyway?
I believe it is Croatian and that the term cravat is a corruption of that. The fact that the practice has survived is potentially evidence that people like it. I think it looks good. Why fit in when you were meant to stand out 8-)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 18:58 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
some people are uncomfortable wearing ties, other people are not.
looking nice or not is a matter of opinion.
For many people who wear ties (and a large number who wear suits regularly), they get ones that are comfortable to wear and feel uncomfortable in a business setting when they are in other attire.
don't mistake your opinion for facts.
Posted Jul 1, 2013 5:56 UTC (Mon)
by elvis_ (guest, #63935)
[Link]
(my contribution to the longest thread in history, humble though it may be)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:57 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
Posted Jun 16, 2013 1:42 UTC (Sun)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link] (4 responses)
I guess Qt should be dying now after Nokia ceased backing it?
Posted Jun 16, 2013 23:59 UTC (Sun)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 9:03 UTC (Mon)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link] (2 responses)
I think it is pretty ridiculous to believe that a project like GNOME and the associated projects that fall under the auspices of the GNOME Foundation would just wither and die if Red Hat as an organization bizarrely decided to stop supporting it's development. There are plenty of interested parties and I imagine a large collective of independent developers (many of which work at Red Hat in any case) who would continue to contribute, maintain, and drive the project.
Posted Jun 20, 2013 12:09 UTC (Thu)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (1 responses)
But whereas Nokia's withdrawal from Qt development arguably led to renewed commitment from other parties (including significant commercial interests) and various other positive developments (the open governance initiative was finally completed), any Red Hat withdrawal from GNOME participation would prompt some serious introspection in the community because it would be yet another example of a large company walking away (Sun being probably the most significant case that comes to mind, but Canonical are also worth bearing in mind).
I suppose the spread of contributors is wider for the GNOME technologies and so that should make the community more robust than that around Qt, and there is therefore more hope that the community would weather that storm, but Red Hat doesn't have the arguably obstructive role that Nokia had which, upon being eliminated, opened up significant opportunities for those who might have been denied those opportunities with a single large vendor running the show.
In short, Nokia's exit probably had an identifiable positive side whereas such benefits are harder to envisage if Red Hat got out of GNOME development.
Posted Jun 20, 2013 13:38 UTC (Thu)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 12:33 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (5 responses)
Gods, I love Red Hat.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 13:24 UTC (Sat)
by clump (subscriber, #27801)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 13:51 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
Posted Jun 16, 2013 16:11 UTC (Sun)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
I'm curious whether you are referring to some time at which I chose to (hopefully constructively) criticize some specific decision by Red Hat management. Or perhaps are conflating my views of Red Hat with those I hold regarding Fedora (which differ substantially). Or perhaps simply have me confused with someone else. (I noted another S. Bergman, posting as guest "sberg" here, the other day.)
-Steve Bergman
Posted Jun 15, 2013 15:31 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 16:07 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
Posted Jun 13, 2013 21:34 UTC (Thu)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 2:46 UTC (Fri)
by imgx64 (guest, #78590)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 11:44 UTC (Fri)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (5 responses)
I'm guessing you're talking about computing or storage nodes.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 12:50 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (4 responses)
I've never understood why someone couldn't just write decent ZFS-style cli utilities for Ext4/LVM2, though. It would have been a hell of a lot easier than developing btrfs, and have provided a lot of the same benefits.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 13:32 UTC (Sat)
by clump (subscriber, #27801)
[Link] (2 responses)
lvextend -r -L +10G /dev/vg_myvg/lv_root (bonus points if you follow the delightful -r option)
Red Hat has written great LVM docs, check them out here:
Posted Jun 15, 2013 13:58 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:57 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
I avoided using it of late because it relies on fsadm, which I thought had been deprecated. But now I look for it I see no sign of that anywhere. Maybe I was confusing it with parted, which has indeed discarded its fs resizing abilities.
I tend to just resize by hand using resize2fs. Often I don't even need to unmount to do an lvextend-and-resize2fs, which I think lvextend -r does require :)
Posted Jun 16, 2013 22:47 UTC (Sun)
by dag- (guest, #30207)
[Link]
Posted Jun 13, 2013 21:58 UTC (Thu)
by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 0:16 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (5 responses)
It's not that shrinking doesn't matter, but that for an enterprise distro, large multi-TB or PB filesystem support matters more
Posted Jun 14, 2013 0:23 UTC (Fri)
by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 0:27 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
then you can get into the whole discussion on if it's really worthwhile to have lots of separate partitions or not, it's a nice bikeshed to paint ;-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 13:30 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 22:14 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
on VM systems, I do a single filesystem for everything 'local' and then mount anything that will be shared
If I need more space, I create a new VM image, bring up the new image, failover to it, and destroy the old one
for bare metal servers, I create three filesystems
the OS goes in the current root, which I like to keep as small as possible (a couple of Gigs on most servers), everything else goes in var (with possible directory symlinks from root into /var). When I do a major OS upgrade, everything in /var gets moved to /var/var.old and then the new OS gets installed in the future root partition (which becomes current root). The post install configuration script can then pull any config info from the old installation, and if I need to revert, I just mv /var/* /var/var.new; mv /var/var.new/var.old/* /var change the bootloader to point back at the old root partition and everything is as it was before.
I am not a fan of LVM, it adds complexity to managing the system, if you actually use it you end up scattering your filesystem around the drive in ways that make it harder to optimize I/O, and most of the time I don't think it's benefits are worth it.
If you are dealing with a local drive where nobody else could use the drive, why leave any space unused?
SSDs are a possible exception, there is a reason to leave space unused, and scattering the filesystem doesn't hurt as there is no seek penalty. I'm just never had a SSD enough larger than I needed to consider it :-)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:06 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 1:56 UTC (Fri)
by ricwheeler (subscriber, #4980)
[Link] (8 responses)
Specifically, you can use a dm-thin target to give each user a large "virtually provisioned" file system (say 1TB? 4TB? whatever) and device mapper will add and remove storage from that virtual file system just like we do with virtual memory and DRAM.
I would also note that resizing a file system - even when supported like in ext4 - is almost always a horrible idea. It tends to skew the allocation of the data on disk in unnatural ways and performance can really suffer.
Last note, there are in fact XFS patches to support shrinking that have been debated on the lists.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:12 UTC (Sat)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 14:47 UTC (Sat)
by ricwheeler (subscriber, #4980)
[Link]
We are working now to do some in depth performance testing at various block sizes with various workloads.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 11:59 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 12:02 UTC (Sat)
by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 14:52 UTC (Sat)
by ricwheeler (subscriber, #4980)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 15:01 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 14:59 UTC (Sat)
by ricwheeler (subscriber, #4980)
[Link] (1 responses)
I would encourage you to test with your combination and share the results with us on the upstream lists :)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 15:21 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
On a Power Edge T310 with a 4 SATA drive md raid10 (yeah, the same one) if I benchmark my expected workload, how much confidence can I have in current RHEL 6.4 defaults? Would you expect the results to vary much between ext4 and xfs? Would you suggest any different starting points?
BTW, congrats on the move toward XFS as default RHEL fs. I was not expecting that. I'm still not certain whether I like that or not. But there is definitely something exciting about it.
Posted Jun 13, 2013 22:13 UTC (Thu)
by wagerrard (guest, #87558)
[Link] (52 responses)
To each his or her own (RHEL users typically don't have that choice), but calling Gnome 2 the "traditional desktop" seems as useful as calling a 1966 Ford the "traditional car".
Posted Jun 14, 2013 2:59 UTC (Fri)
by louie (guest, #3285)
[Link] (50 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 4:46 UTC (Fri)
by billev2k (subscriber, #32054)
[Link] (49 responses)
It's the same with people. I remember faces, or what people do, or where I knew them from, far better than I remember their names.
So, for me these new shells are a disaster. Total stupidity. Useful information discarded for no reason. Try as hard as I may, I can't like them. Though I keep trying...
Posted Jun 14, 2013 5:17 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (44 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 15:30 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (21 responses)
ie:
If Gnome made notifications pop up then people bitch about notifications being distracting and worthless since they prefer to concentrate on one task at a time. (this is very literally a discussion that happened on LWN a while ago, and for a while quite frequently)
If you hide notifications so people can view them on their own time then people bitch that they could miss something important while they are busy concentrating on something less important.
With extensions you can have your cake and eat it too. In this way people that care about either method can have it without forcing cluttered configuration mess on the rest of the world that doesn't give a flip either way.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 21:14 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (8 responses)
Browsers are a good example. Mozilla devs don't say "we are not providing that setting since you can use extensions"; extensions serve niches such as developers, people with disabilities, and so on. 90% of user needs are not provided by browser extensions. If a sizable part of the population have some need and use a particular extension, then it will probably be integrated into the main codebase with a setting to enable it. I find it a good compromise.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 21:30 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (7 responses)
Kind of amusing because extensions were created by Mozilla specifically because they removed a whole of bunch of features from the classic Mozilla browser when they created Firefox and wanted to find a way to deal with the backlash. Later on, it became an avenue for very popular and widely used add-ons like say AdBlock but also to add back some of the features that Firefox removed in recent versions including status bar and several others.
"If a sizable part of the population have some need and use a particular extension, then it will probably be integrated into the main codebase with a setting to enable it"
Unlikely this is the case since even in 2009, atleast 1/3 of all Firefox users were running with add-ons according to Mozilla and I bet they are never going to integrate features like AdBlock no matter how popular it is.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2009/08/11/how-many-firef...
Another thing to note is that GNOME Shell has done some of exactly what you suggest here. To provide a specific example: the most popular extension in the GNOME Shell extensions site in the one to hide the ally icon by default and 3.8 makes it obsolete by not showing the icon and instead relying on just hotkeys to activate various a11y features.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 21:46 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 22:00 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (4 responses)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort...
Video DownloadHelper isn't going to be integrated into Firefox either nor is Greasemonkey despite their popularity.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 22:20 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (3 responses)
So if only European users existed the market share of Adblock would be 15%. Taking into account the whole world in our silly little exercise its market share must be well below 10%, unless the Firefox figure is grossly misrepresented. I have checked with my own locale and the figure stays the same so I believe it should be the global total. The FAQ says that this info is collected by Firefox daily unless you opt-out, so the figure should be reliable.
tl;dr: even the most populars Firefox add-ons are well below 10% of the global user base.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:55 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 8:12 UTC (Sat)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 14:26 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Both Chrome and Mozilla rejected many things on because they do not fit with some "vision". Think ActiveX (which was implemented in Firefox, but was never enabled) or RSS tags (which are not supported by Chromium), etc. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 15:53 UTC (Mon)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link]
That's not correct. Mozilla was extensible long before Phoenix came about - people were using extensions to add things like tabs and gestures, for example.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 21:20 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
Right. Failure mode number 3a: make it so configurable the fact it has no sane defaults is now somehow your fault. It's still a failure mode, sorry. Some configurbility is good, but not does not mean defaults should be unusable.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 22:49 UTC (Fri)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 16:03 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
The entire Gnome/Fedora/Red Hat relationship brings to mind the old TV cliche that "Parental supervision is advised". ;-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:34 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (8 responses)
FF: extensions enhance the product. Gnome 3: extensions fix the product. :-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:49 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 15:42 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 16:42 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:24 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (1 responses)
Which random prediction are you referring to, btw? Sometimes I'm right on those. But usually I'm wrong. I take it you remember one where I was wrong. Let's here it, and all have a laugh. :-)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:11 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
As to your predictions, I will just point out that if you have a lot of influence or control over a software component or distribution without the strong feedback loop from customers, you end up with Ubuntu and Unity as opposed to RHEL and GNOME.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 15:48 UTC (Mon)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link] (2 responses)
I've read a couple of people mentioning this, but I'm confused; perhaps somebody can clarify?
So far as I can see from trying FF21 with no extensions, there *is* a status bar, but it autohides if there is nothing to show. That is, if it would otherwise be empty, then it's not shown. So are these extensions there purely to make the status bar show all the time, even when it's empty?
If that's the case, what reasons are people giving for needing to see the empty status bar? This seems weird which is why I wonder if I've misunderstood.
(Having spent an inordinate amount of time in around 2005 trying to get the status bar to behave as it does now may be colouring my interpretation of the situation.)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 16:56 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 10:14 UTC (Tue)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link]
All of the text that would once have been in the progress bar does still show up in the current status bar ('transferring from blah', etc), but there's no actual progress indicator, which appears to be the principal complaint.
That does help, thanks.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 16:32 UTC (Fri)
by kigurai (guest, #85475)
[Link] (21 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:38 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (20 responses)
I just tried it now. I stared at Activities button for 1.45 seconds. It showed me where all my windows were on all workspaces. It's like magic!
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:02 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:16 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (11 responses)
Same with notifications. They appear, they disappear. Absolutely no clue there is anything to take care of unless you can _remember_ there is something to look for.
I wonder how many times people will log out and kill the long running task or not handle hidden notifications because of this basic oversight. It is the computer that needs to work for me, not the other way around.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:34 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (10 responses)
I never really run into this problem at all since I have always used alt+tab to switch between windows and GNOME Shell shows the windows from all workspaces. I had to use the workspace switched in GNOME 2 because alt+tab in GNOME 2 didn't behave that way.
On the other hand, when I deployed GNOME 2 on a large scale, users who accidentally moved the windows in a different workspace never really found it and the very tiny indicator in the workspace switcher didn't help at all. They would launch multiple instances and complain that Linux was slow.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:45 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:56 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (8 responses)
GNOME 3 atleast attempts to solve the problem in several ways:
a) the overview shows all the workspaces (which are dynamic, so your eyes are drawn to it if you have more than one) and apps running inside it in a much more visible way compared to the switcher.
b) alt+tab shows applications from all workspaces
c) clicking on a running task in the dash just changes focus to the already running instance instead of launching another one so you can always do the same thing and not worry about whether an existing instance is there or not.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:35 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (7 responses)
So, you don't educate your users on what facilities are available, you don't customise their systems to either disable this behaviour (i.e. configure a single workspace) or enlarge the switcher (higher panel) so that it is more visible and then claim it's not good because "it's not obvious". Well, it sure is more obvious than a _hidden_ workspace switcher.
And then there is the "default setup" claim. Hey, in Gnome 2 you could actually customise things using configuration knobs - which is almost completely impossible in Gnome 3. The new system doesn't even have a central configuration for its main elements on the panel. It's all just cowboy code from whichever extension you happen to have. Yeah, sooo much better.
It is not me saying that people's short term memory is bad. It is usability scientists that claim that:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/short-term-memory-and-web...
Why on earth would anyone want to hide the whole of the desktop view from users is beyond me. The shell design documents treat users as neurotic idiots that have nothing better to do than click on buttons just because they are there. So, what do do? Remove the lot to overview.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:00 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 6:19 UTC (Mon)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (5 responses)
In your particular case the bad ones you have configured for them.
> Now one could spend a lot of time training the users and fiddling with the knobs but at that point, GNOME Shell is much more customizable and you lose the argument entirely.
You are being hilarious - the sysadmins are just dying to write JS. Gnome shell cannot even do a simple drag and drop on the panel - something version 2 could do many years ago. As I said before, it's all just cowboy code of whichever extension combo you happen to have loaded, instead of the actual ability to customise.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 7:32 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:19 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
> when I deployed GNOME 2 on a large scale
Then later you claim:
> I didnIt was the default gnome 2 configuration which was not very usable .
So, if you were the one that deployed Gnome 2 on a large scale and failed to provide the appropriate default configuration (which is more than possible in Gnome 2), this is then the shortcoming of Gnome 2. Great.
You know, if you said that you deployed a few systems and defaults were shit, I'd say fine. But you didn't. You deployed large scale (you were obviously _the_ sysadmin in charge), so it was your responsibility to deploy sane defaults. In all the places I worked thus, sysadmins do that as a matter of course.
> Sysadmins would install extensions as needed. There is no need to write any code
Oh really? So, if I decide (as a sysadmin) that I'd like to have the panel on the bottom (because, I don't know, everyone is used to that in the legacy system) and the extension for that does not exist (I didn't actually check - but any number of such examples can be constructed), how exactly will that be done without writing JS? It cannot be done in Gnome 3, because Gnome 3 does not have a configuration database for the elements of its panel (unlike Gnome 2, which can also have multiple panels, for instance).
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:42 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
" Oh really? So, if I decide (as a sysadmin) that I'd like to have the panel on the bottom (because, I don't know, everyone is used to that in the legacy system) and the extension for that does not exist - but any number of such examples can be constructed), how exactly will that be done without writing JS?"
In this case, an extension obviously does exist and is part of GNOME Classic however assuming there are enhancements that you want that isn't part of the desktop environment, writing new code isn't the responsibility of the system administrators but just in case they have to, extending GNOME Shell is much more easier than GNOME 2.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:09 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (1 responses)
Still trying to shift your responsibility to others.
> In this case, an extension obviously does exist and is part of GNOME Classic
You are thinking of the wrong panel.
> writing new code isn't the responsibility of the system administrators but just in case they have to, extending GNOME Shell is much more easier than GNOME 2.
I really love it when you pretend that you don't understand, when I know that you do, given that you are a Fedora contributor.
You will remember the accessibility icon problem in the early Gnome 3. Code had to be written to remove it. Any such action by a system administrator now (i.e. Gnome 3.8) that does not have an extension written for it will require code writing (which then may conflict with a number of other extensions - who knows). No such problems exist in Gnome 2, because elements are laid out using central configuration.
Ease of code writing is irrelevant for this exercise. Lack of central configuration database for panels is.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:16 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 17, 2013 9:07 UTC (Mon)
by kigurai (guest, #85475)
[Link] (6 responses)
If you prefer the old workspace switcher in the panel, then that is fine (believe there is an extension for it), but don't try to sound like the workspaces and windows are in some way hidden.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 9:17 UTC (Mon)
by johill (subscriber, #25196)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:33 UTC (Mon)
by kigurai (guest, #85475)
[Link]
Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:28 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
> "When users can't view several windows simultaneously, they must keep information from one window in short-term memory while they activate another window. This is problematic for two reasons. First, human short-term memory is notoriously weak, and second, the very task of having to manipulate a window—instead of simply glancing at one that's already open—further taxes the user's cognitive resources."
Now extrapolate that to workspaces, lack of workspace switcher and the need to click on Activities button and get overview in order to _see_ (this is what I call zero visibility problem of the shell).
The fact that someone wrote an intellihide style extension that is the workspace switcher just proves that the original ideas from the shell design documentation are very dubious. The point of a _graphical_ user interface is to enable to you to _see_ things - not to hide them.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 7:41 UTC (Tue)
by kigurai (guest, #85475)
[Link] (2 responses)
And that is why extrapolating is seldom very useful.
I think we understand that you personally don't like G3. And I think we are all fine with that. What I fail to understand is why you spend so much time trying to convince us who think that G3 is really nice and works well, that we are somehow wrong and should go back to G2.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 10:57 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
However, virtual desktops have a redeeming feature - they are a boon for "power users", because they typically assign each virtual desktop a fixed role and can efficiently switch between them.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 12:00 UTC (Tue)
by kigurai (guest, #85475)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 6:19 UTC (Fri)
by xtifr (guest, #143)
[Link] (1 responses)
There's even a shell plugin to make it appear next to Activities as a regular menu on the top bar (Advanced Settings->Shell Extensions->Applications Menu Extensions).
It may be because I was expecting the worst after hearing all the horror stories about how bad it was, but I've actually been quite pleasantly surprised after trying Gnome Shell. It's definitely odd, but it really doesn't seem to be that much worse (or better) than what it replaced.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 10:15 UTC (Fri)
by darrylb123 (subscriber, #85709)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 13:21 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (1 responses)
Red Hat had no choice but to slice through the crap and act based upon reality. "Modern", indeed. Now there's an amusing euphemism. (*chuckle*)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 20:41 UTC (Sat)
by luya (subscriber, #50741)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 13:25 UTC (Fri)
by robclark (subscriber, #74945)
[Link]
gnome-shell classic mode seems like a good compromise to bring the best of gnome-shell to rhel users without surprising them too much out of the box. The modern mode is there for users to try if/when they want. Classic mode isn't a sign of failure of gnome-shell/modern.. but IMHO it shows the flexibility of gnome-shell design, and it gives a less abrupt transition for users.
Posted Jun 13, 2013 22:23 UTC (Thu)
by dowdle (subscriber, #659)
[Link]
RHEL Roadmap Part 1 - http://videos.cdn.redhat.com/2013-summit-platform-2.mp4
Ogg format files available as well.
See all of the videos by selecting the various sections:
Posted Jun 13, 2013 22:26 UTC (Thu)
by dowdle (subscriber, #659)
[Link] (18 responses)
Of course if you have the appropriate videocard setup, then you should be able to do fancier desktops.
Posted Jun 13, 2013 23:05 UTC (Thu)
by geofft (subscriber, #59789)
[Link] (8 responses)
I assume RHEL is considering enterprise desktops, not servers.
Posted Jun 13, 2013 23:20 UTC (Thu)
by dowdle (subscriber, #659)
[Link]
Your point is taken about enterprise desktops... but you have to wonder what percentage of RHN subscriptions are for those.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 8:29 UTC (Fri)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
And even if you don't have any use for workstations, you still need some unix desktop nodes to control your unix servers (because some idiot isvs have decided the cli was pre-windows past, so their server sofwtare has a java gui frontend. The easiest way to handle those is to install a minimum X stack on the server and do an ssh -X from a workstation running a similar linux gui stack). The most painful is to control your servers from windows + exceed (some companies did try this to kill all unix desktop remnants when desktop unix=solaris; it didn't go well…). If wayland works well as rdp server it will probably see huge adoption in enterprises just to kill the X workstations needed today to run unix GUI tools remotely. RHEL 8 may not have much need for GNOME in any form.
IIRC one another point raised during this roadmap was that RH customers were sick of the server/desktop segmentation and wanted a single distro that did both. (another point that totally contradicts the "desktop and server are different" "common sense" that justified many GNOME3 decisions).
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:58 UTC (Fri)
by ajmacleod (guest, #1729)
[Link] (5 responses)
It provides remote desktops via traditional XDMCP and NX and works very nicely indeed; Gnome 2 is reasonably easily managed system-wide (through GConf mandatory and default keys). This aspect could certainly be improved, but this "traditional" desktop is what virtually every company actually wants.
They don't want fancy animations, they don't want fancy compositing features; they want pretty much exactly what Gnome 2 provides.
My own E17 desktop is completely different and would doubtless be a nightmare for other people to have to use; but most people in most non-IT businesses want something that looks familiar (Traditional if you wish) and provides an uncomplicated way of launching and switching between web browser/mail client/word processor.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 16:48 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (4 responses)
Yes. I maintain ~100 remote user desktops in 4 cities using NX. Quite amazing, isn't it? There is no way we're moving to Gnome3 shell. I'm just hoping that classic mode doesn't destroy performance. I'd like to have the option to upgrade to RHEL7. But if we can't we can't. A Mate option would be nice. Even if it comes from rpmforge. I might even accept it from EPEL if it came to it.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 17:48 UTC (Mon)
by ajmacleod (guest, #1729)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 22, 2013 21:02 UTC (Sat)
by jmorris42 (guest, #2203)
[Link]
And they want to replace X because... well mostly to replace X because replacing things that work with new shiny things that don't is the way to the Year of Linux on the Desktop someday in the far future. But all this churn has actually done is ensured none of the years in the near past or future ever had a chance at widescale adoption. Because one or more major systems is always in a state of disrepair.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 17:53 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 19:22 UTC (Tue)
by ajmacleod (guest, #1729)
[Link]
A quick search shows that XFCE does appear to have gained something similar in xfconf so perhaps I will consider it again for a future build (hopefully not any time soon!)
Posted Jun 13, 2013 23:28 UTC (Thu)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 2:30 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:07 UTC (Fri)
by SEMW (guest, #52697)
[Link] (2 responses)
Nope. 10%. Constantly. As a baseline. Plus another 5% for X, which is presumably also due to gnome-shell. (And yes, glxinfo shows OpenGL hardware acceleration as working correctly, using the nvidia binary driver and not llvmpipe).
That's... insane.
That's for 3.6. I'll try upgrading to 3.8. If that still uses 15% CPU as a baseline, I think I'm off to XFCE.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:48 UTC (Fri)
by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)
[Link] (1 responses)
I have a decent laptop w/Intel drivers, and gnome-shell rarely appears to use anything in the process list. It gets to maybe 1% now and then, if I cycle between the desktop and overview continually it chews a bit of CPU but that's kind of abnormal.
Compared to the other stuff I have running, it's just noise.
Posted Jun 14, 2013 17:32 UTC (Fri)
by SEMW (guest, #52697)
[Link]
gnome-shell 3.8's also quite a bit nicer than 3.6 in other ways (it's actually responsive - I don't have to wait a second after pressing winkey before the animation starts - and the new TopIcons extension lets you have a useful taskbar), so I'm going to stick with gnome-shell.
Cheers :)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 5:39 UTC (Fri)
by Frej (guest, #4165)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 14, 2013 15:40 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
It will be interesting to see how well it works.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:55 UTC (Sat)
by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 16:01 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 11:52 UTC (Fri)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 14:35 UTC (Fri)
by joshl (guest, #91369)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2013 17:18 UTC (Fri)
by amacater (subscriber, #790)
[Link] (9 responses)
Desktop environment - pointless on a server, as stated, until you want to run Java / GUI tools / you run something that needs an Apache project that demands a webserver or five (tomcat/jetty/apache ...all on the same machine).
Much more important - if ext4 is now well supported, what's the maximum partition size - it needs to be more than the current 16TB in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 (backward compatibility with ext3? It can be annoying).
Anaconda/installer changes _will_ break people's default assumptions - I can't remember if this is also the release which switches X.org to VT1 rather than VT7 ...
Posted Jun 14, 2013 22:23 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (8 responses)
That isn't really true. Red Hat has provided an option for upgrades between versions for as long as RHEL existed via Anaconda "upgradeany" option. The article is talking about a fully commercially supported upgrade path that presumably includes maintaining compatibility for third party ISV apps. Debian has never done that and cannot do that since they don't offer any commercial support in the first place and I doubt cares about ABI compatibility across versions either.
" Much more important - if ext4 is now well supported, what's the maximum partition size - it needs to be more than the current 16TB in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 (backward compatibility with ext3? It can be annoying)."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbXFJMiCCkE (25:00) suggests that XFS will become default for RHEL 7 and upto 50TB for Ext4 will be supported by Red Hat.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:09 UTC (Sat)
by amacater (subscriber, #790)
[Link] (7 responses)
ISVs don't care enough about the packages they produce for Linux, in my experience. That's one of the reasons why there are so many -compat packages, old versions of OpenSSL required and poor dependency management. The likelihood of an ISV coping from RHEL 4.6 to 6.4 is small unless they bundle everything statically in their application. Oh, and Debian really does care about ABI breakage - but sometimes the world breaks round you.
I recognise the name and reputation behind it, however, so am happy to defer to your greater knowledge and expertise.
XFS as default - may not be ideal for something I'm considering, which is more than a little peeving. I'm still not sure to do for >60TB as a filesystem with a mix of file sizes and access requirements. XFS still doesn't quite feel as well known as Ext3/Ext4 and Ted Ts'o :)
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:26 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
ISV's and especially their users deeply care about their software not breaking due to upgrades and they will do whatever ugly hacks it takes (compat libraries, bundling, static linking, building off an ancient version of RHEL. using only %post in RPM to shove files into place after using their custom build environment .. you name it)
It is true that Ext* is more recognized within Linux community but XFS has seen quite a lot of deployments especially in the high end market. I don't doubt that it will work out well. Unfortunately (but not very unexpectedly) it has taken Btrfs a long time to mature but Red Hat in the summit presentation has said they intend to offer commercial support for that as an option (along with Ext* using the Ext4 codebase and XFS) as well.
Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:59 UTC (Sat)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
At the very least, XFS will see some much needed testing in areas where it has traditionally not seen much use. Red Hat has to think way ahead. High end today is home user in 10 years. Or less. Though I'm finding it really hard to utitilize the space and I/O bandwidth provided by modern drives. It's the damned random writes that I have ongoing issues with.
Random prediction. I might be eating my own words in a few years' time. But if RHEL were not the first to make XFS default, who would be? Fedora, I suppose. This is all very interesting.
Posted Jun 17, 2013 2:30 UTC (Mon)
by jhhaller (guest, #56103)
[Link]
Posted Jun 15, 2013 22:02 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
I think it's worth pointing out that Ext3/4 do not get tested on 60TB disk arrays because the developers (including Ted) just do not have such systems available to them.
I don't remember the exact bug, but there was an Ext4 bug a year or so ago that only happened on large filesystems, and when he was explaining why they didn't catch it in testing, Ted explained that they do the vast majority of their testing on laptop/desktop type systems, almost all with just a single drive for the filesystem.
It's been the case for a long time that if you needed top performance on a system with lots of drives, XFS would give you better performance than ext*
As "Big Data" becomes more common, even with larger drive sizes, use of large arrays increases.
In addition, XFS has been improving it's performance on smaller drives, and addressing some of it's historic bottlenecks (creating or deleting large numbers of files for example)
Posted Jun 16, 2013 2:19 UTC (Sun)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
One day, Google may grow large enough to be able to supply such hardware for testing.
One interesting thing that is happening is that storage *space* is increasing by leaps and bounds. But performance (particularly seek performance) isn't. Hasn't for a very long time. The number of terabytes per user is increasing. But a home user is still a home user. And sure, they can have a multi-terabyte DVD image collection. But they only watch them 1 by 1, at 30MB/s or whatever.
For stuff that matters, even on most server hardware, ext4 is still the best. 16TB is still a freaking huge amount of space. And we should not forget that. Ric asked at Red Hat Summit 2013, how many of their enterprise user attendees were above 16TB, and seemed surprised at the relative lack of hands shown.
Posted Jun 22, 2013 21:04 UTC (Sat)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (1 responses)
Now, googling manpages for xfs_repair now shows an option for limiting memory usage so maybe this is fixed now, but there are still plenty of pages on the web warning about this.
Posted Jun 22, 2013 22:31 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
just because a problem gets fixed doesn't mean that all the pages that reported the problem get changed as well. some of the people who wrote the pages will write new ones, some won't bother, some won't know the problem got fixed.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
> behind Gnome)
[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux>
[3] <https://www.gnome.org/about/>
[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza>
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
> And where exactly did I say that it was _only_ Red Hat that was behind
> Gnome? I just said they were behind it. You numbers prove it rather
> neatly, actually.
It's very easy to do that interpretation from your first statement:
The Gnome 3 "overview" is such a great invention that
Red Hat (company behind Gnome) decided to leave it out
of the default setup in their money-spinner. Yep, that
is what I call a vote of confidence.
Here it sounds like you claim Red Hat carries the responsibility for GNOME 3, and even doesn't have the courage to bring the full GNOME 3 experience to their customers.
And that is what I reacted to. GNOME is a project, where Red Hat is a participant, pretty much on the same level as everyone else who wants to contribute. That Red Hat decides to not enable a new feature by default for their Enterprise customers, doesn't mean they don't have faith in it. But they obviously listens to their customers' concerns, and try to avoid upsetting them. And for customers who want that new experience, they can enable it when they are ready for it. That's something completely different than claiming Red Hat doesn't have faith in something.
If Red Hat hadn't had faith in the GNOME 3, why would they ship it at all? Why would they keep on contributing to the GNOME project?
(those questions are rhetorical questions)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ#Why_no_windo...
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
- classic mode confirmed this cannot always be followed
- Red Hat confirmed they will use classic mode by default
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Wol
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Disclaimer:
If you think I 'm personally attacking you, I am really sorry if it came out that way. Its not my intention. But I always liked you for your contributions in fedora and massively respect your involvement. But the LWN "gnome-is-always right/everyone loves gnome-shell" posts of yours is misleading. I am using fedora f19 with XFCE.
You always argue that gnome UI is loved by everyone and try to project that the people who doesn't like it are a minority. Well honestly its not the case and you tend to use the freedom of speech to high-pitch your opinions on others on every other gnome-shell issue case. I always find some gnome-devs who doesn't disclose their position coming into support gnome-shell as well, at LWN. For all the love you have with gnome-shell try googling "I hate gnome-shell" without the quotes. There are like 2 dozens of threads in every linux forums about how they hate gnome-shell. I hardly find as much threads about how "I love gnome-shell" anywhere even with gnome 3.8.
There is very good chance that you might argue that forums are wrong place to look for statistics or info. I do understand that, but there are not many options out there.
If people don't talk about it, either they are done talking or already moved on to something else.
If gnome-shell is not such an issue why red hat is opting for a classic mode? (please save your self some time of implying how gnome-shell classic mode is also the gnome-shell, we already know that fact.)
You are expecting us to get convinced and not bitch about gnome-shell?
I have lost lot of features in gnome apps in the last 2 years and I had to switch to XFCE. If that's evolution so be it.
There are alternatives in fedora as well with MATE/cinnamon.
Its already adapting to red hat with classic mode. You can't market modern gnome-shell to workstation guys. Red hat knows that very well. They refer that "they want continuity in interface for a customer moving from gnome 2 to gnome 3".
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Oh come now. Yesterday you didn't seem to know of any studies, except the Sun one on GNOME1 that led to the GNOME2 HIG:
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Posted Jun 16, 2013 17:49 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram
Where were the HCI studies on GNOME 2 that provided the objective evidence and rationale for the GNOME 3 UI changes?
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
and implement a Classic UI mode to cater to those users
"""
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Still the usage statistics are low.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Hosting it on the official wiki with a small disclaimer is poor marketing.
It should be taken down, immediately since it is giving such a bad rapport to the distro.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Do they? Do they not? Will they decide to in future?
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Gods, I love Red Hat.
Wow, you've come a long way.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
I've never understood why someone couldn't just write decent ZFS-style cli utilities for Ext4/LVM2, though. It would have been a hell of a lot easier than developing btrfs, and have provided a lot of the same benefits.
LVM commands are pretty easy. There's not much difficulty in the following command example:Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
current root
future root
var
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
For a long time Gnome advocates were trying to find sane defaults, and afterwards removing most settings altogether since nobody should need anything beyond what the system brings. Now the pendulum swings: the base system does not provide for common needs, they are provided by extensions which are:
Extensions are not always a good solution
Both points of view have their merits: sane defaults and extensibility. I believe that there must exist some kind of sane compromise without going to extremes: a base system which is usable for everyone, and customizations which enrich the user experience.
Extensions are not always a good solution
Extensions are not always a good solution
Unlikely this is the case since even in 2009, atleast 1/3 of all Firefox users were running with add-ons according to Mozilla
Not really a contradiction: even if 1/3 of users have some extension, the set of extensions is very diverse and there is probably no extension with even 10% of users. Not even adblock which is probably the most popular -- and as you hint will never be integrated with the browser for political reasons.
Extensions are not always a good solution
Interesting. Adblock Plus boasts 15,523,890 users. Even with its dwindling 27% market share in Europe (pop. 739,165,030), and a penetration rate of the intertubes at just 50%, that would yield about 100 million Firefox users. Those are low estimates: the penetration rate at least would be well above 50% in most countries since many people have two or more computers.
Extensions are not always a good solution
Extensions are not always a good solution
The point is anyway that Mozilla or Chrome do not usually reject popular functionalities on usability grounds, or because they do not fit with some "vision". I find it very healthy.
Extensions are not always a good solution
Extensions are not always a good solution
Extensions are not always a good solution
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
90% of what people bitch about can be solved by a extension. Which is what extensions are for because everybody likes to bitch about their particular pet peeve, and everybody's pet peeve is different.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
There is basically nothing else to press other than the "Activities" button when you start GNOME.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Now I just Ctrl-Alt-up or down the relevant number of desktops to get where I want to be. When I get lost, then I use the mouse to the top left corner and I am away again.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Extensions in Gnome Shell is a failed idea?
The ability to mimick the look similar to Gnome 2 is a failed idea?
Setting to "Have File Manager handling Desktop" through Tweak Tool or dconf-editor is a failed idea?
Please explain.
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
RHEL Roadmap Part 2 - http://videos.cdn.redhat.com/2013-summit-platform-3.mp4
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
It is true that Ext* is more recognized within Linux community but XFS has seen quite a lot of deployments especially in the high end market. I don't doubt that it will work out well.
"""
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
The developers (including Ted) just do not have such systems available to them.
"""
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)
Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)