Slashdot Mirror
Gnome 3.12 Delayed To Sync With Wayland Release
sfcrazy writes "Gnome developers are planning to delay the release of Gnome 3.12 by approximately a week. It's a deliberate delay to sync the release with the availability of Wayland 1.5. Matthias Clasen (Fedora and Gnome developer) explains that 'the GNOME release team is pondering moving the date for 3.12.0 out by approximately a week, to align the schedule with the Wayland release plans (a 1.4.91 release including all the xdg-shell API we need is planned for April 1). The latter 3.11.x milestones would be shifted as well, to avoid lengthening the freeze period unnecessarily.'"
I've read through the Wayland site and another half dozen pages that are obviously over my head and I just don't understand what Wayland is or what it's advantages are. I think it's suppose to be replacing X11, but I don't really understand X11 either, other than it's a method of getting things onto the screen. So I'm throwing my ignorance out there hoping I won't be flamed out of existence and someone can explain or point me to a laymen description of Wayland, and/or X11 and how one is better than the other. It seems like it should be a big deal since I've read there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with X11 for quite sometime and yet no one's ever done anything about it. That is until now, if Wayland is in fact a replacement
I'm sorry I realize this has been discussed several times and I'm sorry I'm just not getting it.
Say, forever? MATE with Xorg is much more suitable than either Gnome or Wayland.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
NO!
Gnome 3 - Cool shell for GNU/Linux
X11's far more than mature by now. You can expect ongoing support in various capacities for decades - it's just that widespread.
'Cool' as in 'Dead and cool'
Like many people, my chief concern over Wayland is 'network transparency. Unlike some others, I'm willing to believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Specifically, with X based systems, X remoting is no longer the way I use X remotely, I use xpra as it delivers me a better experience. Unlike something like NX, Xpra does not try to extend or enhance X based protocols, but instead gets content by setting itself as the compositor, knowing things like window relationships to each other and being able to do things like recognizing a tray icon for what it is.
My question is if the same sort of thing would be possible with Wayland today and if people are doing it.
I am entirely amateur hour at this and may have mischaracterized, but I'm willing to hold out hope that the one major fundamental downside of Wayland could be overcome in the same way that Xpra makes X better.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Good grief!!! Is this crap still going???
X is an application that runs on a computer with a graphics card. A graphical application can then use the X libraries to send drawing commands over the network to an X server, eg "draw a line", "draw a box", "display this bitmap", "display this string in font zzz". Note that the concept of "client" and "server" are somewhat reversed from the normal meaning - the X "server" runs on your desktop, the client can run somewhere in a datacenter. Think about apps processing major datasets and then generating some output...makes sense then for the "client" to be on the larger computer.
The X "server" also controls keyboard/mouse/etc, sending events to the relevant client apps.
The problem with X is that the whole design no longer matches what client apps want to do - eg interact with 3d-capable GPUs, use exactly the fonts they want (rather than asking the X server to use the font with a specific name, and hoping the server has that font available). And the network layer inbetween adds latency. And the set of commands that X supports is now so large that the server is huge - making it buggy, full of security holes, and difficult to maintain.
Wayland is basically the lowest-level parts of X (handling the graphics card), plus a very simple API for clients - it accepts bitmaps only, no "draw a line" stuff. And no network support - clients are local only. Client apps can then code directly against the Wayland APIs (ie pass it bitmaps, often generated by interacting directly with a GPU to render 3d graphics into a buffer). Fast, simple. Or clients can code against the original X API, in which case the drawing commands are sent across the network as they always were, and then are handled by a slimmed-down X-server which executes the commands and passes the resulting buffer to the local wayland server.
In practice of course, most apps will code to the GTK or QT apis, and it is GTK/QT which is responsible for interacting with Wayland or X.
There is also code in development to create a "wayland network protocol" where clients can generate images (on whatever computer they are running on - which might have a GPU), and then send the (compressed) image over the network to another wayland server where the user actually sits and sees the graphics. This is a kind of "RDP remote desktop" mode - and according to many people will actually out-perform the old X way of doing things, as well as being vastly simpler to implement/maintain.
You spelled "Unity" wrong.
The transition from Gnome2 to Gnome3 was an awful one for me. I bet there was a meeting somewhere that went like this...
...Yes, I'm bitter. Yes, I've moved all my machines to XFCE (MATE looks useful, but less mature/stable ATM). If I wanted a confusing UI with limited customization, I would just use OSX. The fact that anyone willingly uses Gnome3 bewilders me. IMHO, they should have done this: continue to keep Gnome2 as "Gnome", fork the code, and call Gnome3 something different (KDE8-X or something).
Designer 1: Gnome2 is way too simple! Look at this Windows 8 - they totally outdid the rest of the world!
Designer 2: Yes, and look at this OSX - girls love it!
Dev: Totally! Let's re-do all the menus/toolbars, and then we'll make it the new default on (insert list of gnome3 distros here). Everyone will love it from day one, and nobody will experience any loss of productivity! It will be a great resume builder for us as well.
All: Yay!
No, he's right. You see Unity was the reaction to GNOME 3, the part where people "in charge" of the GNU/Linux UI realized that GNOME 3 was a lemon, and decided to "fix" it.
Unity is Windows 8.1 for GNU/Linux.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Isn't Unity built on Gnome3? You may mean Gnome Shell, which I find far more usable than Unity, but just as unstable. I've since moved on to KDE and can't see myself leaving unless I have an old machine where I'll use Xfce or OpenBox or something.
Not quite. Windows 8 required completely new apps to use the 'modern' half of the OS. Gnome 3, Unity, KDE and the rest can all run ALL apps (except maybe some applets that are desktop-specific) on the same desktop. Whether you like that particular desktop is a different issue altogether. But on Windows 8, even if you like the new desktop, you can't use it to run Win32 apps. That was Microsoft's biggest mistake. They should've made it so Win32 apps could be rejiggered to work in the new environment - even if some UI changes were required. But they were trying to leverage their control of the desktop OEM's to seed their late-to-market tablet and phone system.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
For Windows 8, if you're referring to the new Metro/Modern UI as the new desktop, the lack of Win32 compatibility was not a mistake. There is a huge security shift moving to Metro/Modern.
They finally implemented a secured app ecosystem. Instead of granting installers blanket admin privileges, they require permissions manifests that are enforced by the local security system. This makes some traditional trojans (like keyloggers) impossible without privilege escalation exploits. Their read/write privileges are also restricted unless their manifests request more.
This is similar to how Android presents the user with a list of permissions for each new application (or for an update, if that particular update includes new permissions).
While some apps can never move to Metro/Modern, any non-technical user will have better security with Metro/Modern apps. Personally, I use none of those apps on the one Windows 8 system I have---but I would prefer it if my parents switched. I believe Metro/Modern is useless for Slashdot-level users and an important step for everyone else. Given a few iterations, it could knock down the wall between security and usability.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Gnome 3, Unity, KDE and the rest can all run ALL apps (except maybe some applets that are desktop-specific) on the same desktop.
If you just lunch a unique single window application like a browser, maybe. But my experience with Gnome 3 and Unity are really bad as soon as I want a lot of virtual desktop with a lot of windows into each of them. So bad that I now use XFCE or MATE to get my shiny 8x8 virtual desktop grid to fit all my projects.
Gnome 3 break almost any applications that use multiple windows or full screen, in addition to break virtually all preexisting applets without decent replacement. Unity is even more broken with the full screen mode and there old style common top menu bar that behave erratically. Managing a lot of windows on those desktop is a unbelieving nightmare. The most ridicule part of the story is that both scarified decade of improvement in Gnome 2 in the name of a more intuitive interface. For me, there both miserably failed:
* If the users just wants to start a few application full screen, Gnome 2 was really capable of doing so very well.
* If the users wants a powerful, comfortable, and fast desktop for complex task with a lot of windows, Gnome 2 was also the best choice.
And I am certain to not be alone with the regret of Gnome 2, since so much contribution effort are now given to MATE project for example. I will not be surprised that MATE will overtake Gnome 3 in a few years. I fact, I hope this will be the case, because projects that are unable to understand his users base will see there contribution effort going down over time.
And by "vapid idiots" you mean "people who don't think like me."
Not for you, perhaps.
And any applications you have that use X11 will continue to work. It's hideously inefficient for anything using a recent toolkit, but it'll work.
Well considering that they can capture the per-app buffers, compress them, and stream them over the network only on update (without polling), I'm sure that a wayland-derived remote system will easily be more efficient than X11 and VNC. Tunneled over SSH, of course.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I think you should respect those who do like it. In response we won't trash what desktop you like.
Yes Gnome 2 was officially abandoned by the Gnome Foundation, but a lot and growing number of peoples are making contribution to the MATE fork. The name change was needed because the project was not officially supported by the Gnome Foundation. This don't imply that the MATE fork don't get support from others peoples outside of the Gnome Foundation. Seriously, the Gnome Foundation is not the only entity on the planet capable to support a desktop project. In fact I tend to say that there miserably failed the Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 transition.
I didn't say they should run existing Win32 as is. But they should've provided a toolset to build 'Modern' apps using existing Win32 code. If not all of that code could be supported safely, then provide workarounds - or sandbox the apps - or whatever it takes. The Win32 API's can't be so insecure that it's worth throwing out the huge base of existing Win32 code as opposed to supporting most of it as a way to seed Metro with new, secure apps.
As it is, WinRT is not selling at all, so the full-blown, insecure version of Win32 is still there on all Windows 8 devices. Way to 'improve' security...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Just like glibc!
Isn't Unity built on Gnome3? You may mean Gnome Shell, which I find far more usable than Unity, but just as unstable. I've since moved on to KDE and can't see myself leaving unless I have an old machine where I'll use Xfce or OpenBox or something.
it uses all of the gnome environment but the shell it self is being made with qt now, or so I heard.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
They have gotten the 'datacenter' part, but it's true that generally from say an X station point of view, you can use it from your desk and someone from the data center could also use it. But the server is not some big iron thing, it's just a simple client.
It is being ported to GTK3 so that makes it a lot more relevant. If they just kept it at GTK2 then yeah it is useless. Of course they are in direct competition to Cinnamon which provides a similar GNOME 2 interface.
They do support X. It will be awhile before GNOME completely switches to Wayland, at least 3-4 releases.
I'm sorry you didn't like GNOME 3. There is an ever increasing number of people who have found GNOME 3.10 to be pretty good. You do have to adjust to it, but most of hte defaults are sane and you don't have to tweak it and for a lot of people that's really the attraction. Just set it up and go.
What is the problem on Gnome if you have multiple virtual desktops and lots of windows on each of them? Virtual desktops work about just like in Gnome 2, except that they are dynamic by default - they are created when needed and removed when they are empty. And I would say moving windows to different virtual desktops is much easier under Gnome 3 than what it was under Gnome 2.
Under Gnome 2, if you had lots of windows open on one virtual desktop, the task bar was starting to get unusable - it was really hard to find correct window from the full task bar with really small icons. It is much easier under Gnome, when you can see window previews on overvime 2, since so much contribution effort are now given to MATE project for example. I will not be surprised that MATE will overtake Gnome 3 in a few years. I fact, I hope this will be the case, because projects that are unable to understand his users base will see there contribution effort going down over time.ew screen. It will get crowded as well, but not as fast as with Gnome 2.
And how exactly Gnome 3 breaks apps with multiple windows? Multiple terminals? Or Dia? I haven't seen any breakage.
That may be beyond the point of diminishing returns. It's true that GTK or QT has the best opportunity to have good primitives for a network connection and provides the ability for remote applications to appear even more seamless with local applications in cases of theme differences, but the work would be a lot more complicated than it was implementing the X primitives that were relevant in the 80s. On addition to being very difficult, the coupling between client and server would be tighter (if application goes to render a widget the display doesn't have due to version mismatch, that could be a problem).
On the otherhand, realtime encode of desktop display is actually pretty serviceable nowadays. You still want the ability to recognize very high level elements for what they are to provide the goodness of network transparency (this is a 'window', a 'dialog', a 'tray icon'), but perhaps not require that the display understand what region of a displayed window is a button versus something else.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.