Slashdot Mirror
GNOME Shell No Longer Requires GPU Acceleration
An anonymous reader writes "The GNOME 3.0 Shell with the Mutter window manager no longer requires GPU acceleration to work, while still retaining the compositing window manager and OpenGL support. GNOME Shell can now work entirely on the CPU using the LLVM compiler via the Gallium3D LLVMpipe driver. This will be another change to Fedora 17 to no longer depend upon the GNOME3 fall-back, which is expected to eventually be deprecated and further anger GNOME2 fans."
Is slow. I'm not sure that this is an advantage.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Oh for fucks sake. I've just switched the wife's laptop from Ubuntu 11.10 to the beta of Fedora 16, since unlike that Unity bollocks at least the GNOME shell has the "fallback" mode that turns it back into something usable.
The summary is a troll (as is typical for slashdot). Gnome 2 is still included in Fedora 17. The only difference is that if you have selected Gnome 3 for your desktop (which is default), and GPU acceleration isn't working, it will now fallback to unaccelerated Gnome 3 rather than Gnome 2. Regardless of your opinion of Gnome 3, this just makes sense; it would be much more confusing to get a completely different desktop than you were expecting just because your video drivers got borked. Not to mention it is wasteful to have to install Gnome 2 as a fallback if you want to use Gnome 3.
GNOME is a perfect study in how not to architect a software system. Everything about it is wrong.
The first mistake they made was trying to cobble half-assed object-oriented support onto C, rather than just using C++ or Objective-C. Everything about GObject is stupid and counterproductive. It makes writing code a real pain in the ass, since you need to use typecasting macros all over the place. Worse, this sort of code promotes library design that's slow and inefficient. To make it even worse, this style of C code is so convoluted that it is not optimized well by compilers, resulting in binaries that are far slower than they should be.
It basically goes totally downhill after that. This bullshit with GPU acceleration being required in the first place, and then this additional bullshit involving LLVM, is yet another in a long list of flaws and horrible decisions.
I encourage all of the developers that I mentor to use GNOME and to get a good look at its internals. I just make sure that they know not to do what GNOME has done. By seeing the mistakes firsthand, it's less likely that they'll repeat them in the future with the software that they create.
GNOME is a perfect study in how not to architect a software system. Everything about it is wrong.
The first mistake they made was trying to cobble half-assed object-oriented support onto C, rather than just using C++ or Objective-C. Everything about GObject is stupid and counterproductive. It makes writing code a real pain in the ass, since you need to use typecasting macros all over the place. Worse, this sort of code promotes library design that's slow and inefficient. To make it even worse, this style of C code is so convoluted that it is not optimized well by compilers, resulting in binaries that are far slower than they should be.
Nonsense. GObject gives you multi-language bindings for free and if you're just an application developer it only makes your life easier. You can develop GNOME programs in C++, Python, Java or whatever suits your tastes.
I don't think the overhead resulting from using C is substantial at all. Maybe you get more overhead than C++ by always using virtual calls but that is offset by not doing C++ magic like unnecessary constructor/destructor calls. You'll have to back this up if you want me to believe you.
It basically goes totally downhill after that. This bullshit with GPU acceleration being required in the first place, and then this additional bullshit involving LLVM, is yet another in a long list of flaws and horrible decisions.
I encourage all of the developers that I mentor to use GNOME and to get a good look at its internals. I just make sure that they know not to do what GNOME has done. By seeing the mistakes firsthand, it's less likely that they'll repeat them in the future with the software that they create.
I'm not a fan of GNOME and I agree that they are headed in the wrong direction, but the problems are not at all due to GObject or C. Cut the FUD when you criticise GNOME next time.
It's the way the Gnome3 devs are all working against each other that really sucks.
You have a half-incomplete tablet UI allied to a half-incomplete laptop UI both of which get on the tits of desktop users;
- and my feeling of 'at least they are going somewhere different and interesting' has evaporated now I see Gnome 3.2 is identical to 3,0 in every single cockup. Only one of the real UI problems has been addressed; and more ill-considered and contradictory decisions have been imposed on us.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
It's about time Slashdot stops accepting 'blogspam' links, such as Phoronix, instead of attributing the actual source itself. Phoronix didn't solve this, a developer did.
A badly written Slash summary (and 'article') which just links twice to the same braindead Phoronix article (which itself is a several day old duplicate) is bad. Very bad.
Dredged from the bottom of Phoronix:
Mailing list post: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/158976.html
Fedora 17 feature point: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome_shell_software_rendering
Personally, I have little doubt that the "anonymous reader" is Michael Larabel himself.
"A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
Not the GP, but what he's saying is far more true to my experience than what you're saying. I don't think the GP's comment is spreading FUD, either, but just a truth that many GNOME'ers don't want to hear.
Have you ever tried to use the GObject bindings for other languages? The Python bindings are the only ones that aren't terrible, but they weren't that good either. The rest were very incomplete, very outdated, or didn't exist at all. The theoretical benefits or capabilities of GObject are worthless if we can't use them in practice. I've had a lot more success with interoperability between Java, Scala, and Clojure than I ever have had with any GObject-based code. The same goes for .NET when the languages are C#, VB.NET and F#. Those all work seamlessly with almost no effort, while GObject needs a lot of hand-holding and even then it often just doesn't work.
What the GP says about some C compilers not doing a good job optimizing unusual C code is correct, too. I used to work on a compiler that generated C for a proprietary OO language and this artificial C code confused the optimizers of several popular C compilers. We got much better performance when we wrote our own native back-end. So I could totally see some of GNOME's bad performance being caused by this.
Also, KDE is very good evidence to back up the GP's claims. It's comparable in size and complexity to GNOME, but is written using C++ instead of C. On every computer I've ever used, KDE has been a lot faster than GNOME. It is also a far nicer environment to work with when you're writing code. OO programming is more natural in C++ than it is in C using GObject.
Don't write off the GP's comments as FUD. There's a lot of evidence to show that they're real problems.
It was useful for the poster to quote the entire post because many of us often filter out all posts by Anonymous Cowards. By filtering out the ACs, you avoid a lot of crap and frosty pisses and enthusiastic racist name-calling.
It was an insightful post by someone who didn't care to create an account, even though it's very easy to create an account and Slashdot is very good about not misusing our email addresses. By quoting the good post in full, the GP performed a service to the community.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Who says it's not a verb? The Oxford English Dictionary lists it as having been a verb since at least 1818, and as being more specific than "design".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
None. Not any.
It becomes clearer every day that people hate Gnome 3, and yet even as the soft noise builds to a roar, some people think it's merely a few haters bellyaching.
Listen, people hate the *shit* out of Gnome 3. It seems obvious that what started out as an attempt to create some sort of tablet-compatible UI which is also palatable on the desktop has now become a large liability. Gnome 3 has nothing that users asked for - it has been funded and driven by corporate interests (ahem INTEL) that wish to eventually provide some competition to Android's current domination in the Linux tablet market.
People hate Gnome 3. Developers hate Gnome 3. Gnome 3 is simply one of the worst abortions of a window manager to ever appear on Linux, and the situation is not going to get any better until people start fleeing and distributions leave it in the dust.
The writing's on the wall, but just because you avoid glancing in that direction that does not mean you can expect us all to swallow your fantasy about Gnome 3's awesome suitability.
There is a hell of a lot of whining about GNOME 3 here. I'm a free software developer of desktop software (AbiWord). I personally like GNOME 3 and its approach to do a new take on how best to present a computer interface to users. I also maintain systems for my mother and daughter who are definitely not computer geeks. They're both impressed and comfortable with GNOME 3.
So my extremely small sample imply that GNOME 3 is a good step. For the computers geeks out there there a plenty of alternatives. Find the one that works for you.