Yeah, that's a Known Issue in general. It's not really something to be solved at the distro level, though (well, there will likely be bits we'll have to make sure are in place), but at the desktop level. There is someone working on high DPI support for GNOME:
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian.
on
Fedora 19 Released
·
· Score: 1
One of the points of dnf is that it will share a dependency solving backend with zypper (libsolv), that was an intentional and co-ordinated decision to reduce NIH. We can't really just use each other's tools wholesale, though, there are various bits of unique functionality each needs to maintain, AIUI.
I'm perfectly relaxed, thanks. I made two simple assertions which are amply backed by evidence in this very discussion: that more people than just the sub-thread OP (and myself) like GNOME 3, and that people who don't tend to be loud and annoying. Ample evidence for both of those, found right here. I'm feeling just fine about that post, thanks.
I am very involved in the production of Fedora. I am not involved in the production of GNOME, beyond testing it and reporting bugs - but then, I do that for KDE, MATE, LXDE, Xfce and Sugar too. I have tested all of those, reported bugs in them, and fixed bugs in several of them. I just happen to like GNOME, myself. I am not Required To Like it: RH staff working on Fedora are entirely free to use whatever the hell we like as long as our jobs get done. I know for a fact there are RH Fedora staff using every desktop/WM under the sun, and some blackhearts running OS X. I just like GNOME. I like GNOME on my spare time. No-one is paying me for it, though if the GNOME Foundation has some spare cash rattling around, I wouldn't object.:P
I think there are a few upstream bugs about the problem of using the global menu with apps on secondary displays, it's recognized not to be a great experience at present.
I'm sorry, I thought this was Slashdot, not a goddamn corporate conference.
I've got one person accusing me of being a PR flack, and one person accusing me of not 'treat[ing] my users with humility and respect'. You can't win around here, apparently.
I'm not claiming that GNOME 3 is perfect, or RHEL, or RHEV, or anything else to do with RH. Hell, I've never run RHEV. Or, for that matter, RHEL.
What I'm trying to do is point out that a debate people like to load up as if it's Extremely Philosophically Important really isn't. This idea that a desktop environment must somehow give the user 'complete control' of how they use their desktop is an utter fallacy. No desktop environment possibly can.
It is entirely legitimate to argue that GNOME sometimes draws the line too far towards 'developers make the decisions'. There are legitimate arguments on the other side too. But the point is that you are arguing about where to draw a line that has to exist, you are not arguing about a fundamental philosophical difference. There are decisions about where to draw that line that are pretty much objectively absurd. Then there is quite a wide spectrum within which it is somewhat reasonable to draw the line, and a whole range of different consequences for different use cases depending on where a given piece of software draws the line. I don't dispute that. I just want to point out very clearly that this is basically a technical decision, it is not some kind of Great Philosophical Conflict. GNOME is not stealing your freedoms.
It's rather like how, in many countries, you will find two political factions producing grand ideological arguments about a decision which boils down to 'should the tax rate be 42% or 43%'. It's a technical discussion about where exactly to draw a given line, it is not a huge ideological debate.
I'm getting paid exactly nothing to post on Slashdot. Exactly nothing. I really should be doing something more productive with my time, but I'm an idiot.
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian.
on
Fedora 19 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes. I work on Fedora. For Red Hat. I've done seven package builds in the last week - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=954 . I'm still official maintainer for a few. I contributed to several rounds of discussion on revising the packaging guidelines. And I'm the team lead for the RH team which works on the automated testing system which is ultimately intended to *enforce* some of the packaging guidelines. Credentials enough for you?
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian.
on
Fedora 19 Released
·
· Score: 2
Spacewalk (which is the 'upstream' version of RH's Satellite, btw) and puppet aren't exactly intended to do the same things, AFAIK. Google has some useful results, inc. http://www.brightprocess.com/?p=306 and http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-November/085138.html . I'm no expert on the field (I'm much more down at the duct tape end) but it looks like people actually tend to use both together.
A live image needs to actually be live bootable, for a start, i.e. it needs a bootloader. We need to compress the live image to make it a tolerable size, and it needs to be built in such a way that the live installer can deploy it.
Honestly I haven't tried using puppet or anything similar to build a live image, I'm not the best guy to give you the answers. I just know what smarter cookies have told me. But you might want to talk to Kevin Fenzi about it, look him up, he'd probably be a good guy to answer questions: he's part of the release engineering team, and he's done some thinking about improving the generation process.
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian.
on
Fedora 19 Released
·
· Score: 2
It speeds up network connections? Where can I get this magical software?!
No, I'm not a GNOME dev, just someone who can think straight.
The largest possible set of configuration options for a desktop environment is only possibly accessible by writing one yourself. Imagine a desktop environment with a checkbox for absolutely every possible choice about how a DE could work. What you have just imagined is not KDE (though it's close!), but a very unwieldy programming language.
If you really want 'ultimate choice' you need an option to render the entire desktop upside down, or in inverted colours, or projected onto a sphere, or as if it were a colony of monkeys. All of these are possible configurations of a desktop environment.
When you choose to use someone else's code rather than write your own, you are *inevitably* excluding a very large set of possibilities for how that code could in fact work. The simple act of choosing to use someone else's code is *in itself* a statement that you *want that person to make a large number of choices for you*.
Once that fact is established, then in deciding exactly how many configuration options the resultant code should have we are only bickering about where to draw a line between 'choices made by the author' and 'choices left up to the user'. We are not arguing about some sort of serious principle of personal liberty.
Re:Moving to Fedora 19 Xfce
on
Fedora 19 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"I don't understand why. The programs do not act consistently."
(emphasis mine)
You implied very clearly that you did not know why this was the case, and that it was some kind of intentional thing. You *do* know why it's the case, because it has previously been explained to you, and you know that it is not the intended state of affairs but merely an artifact of a long-term transition in design, yet you continue to criticize it as if it were the former rather than the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's a Known Issue in general. It's not really something to be solved at the distro level, though (well, there will likely be bits we'll have to make sure are in place), but at the desktop level. There is someone working on high DPI support for GNOME:
http://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2013/06/28/hidpi-support-in-gnome/
So you might want to keep an eye on that.
One of the points of dnf is that it will share a dependency solving backend with zypper (libsolv), that was an intentional and co-ordinated decision to reduce NIH. We can't really just use each other's tools wholesale, though, there are various bits of unique functionality each needs to maintain, AIUI.
but 9:16 beats the pants off either...;)
"Why not 3.10"
Well, for a start, 3.10 stable came out several days after we finalized the F19 release images.
But Fedora kernels are rebased, these days: F18 and F19 will both get kernel 3.10 fairly soon.
Ooh, touche. Fair point. So we're just comparing anecdata. I'd still go with my original contention, but you're right in terms of the flow from there.
Maybe it's more like an infinitive? Ooh, this is a fun game!
I'll make sure to file a bug tomorrow suggesting that we FUCKING SPLIT THE PARIGAM
Yes.
Oh, and again, this is Slashdot. "Combative" is the price of admission around here.
I'm perfectly relaxed, thanks. I made two simple assertions which are amply backed by evidence in this very discussion: that more people than just the sub-thread OP (and myself) like GNOME 3, and that people who don't tend to be loud and annoying. Ample evidence for both of those, found right here. I'm feeling just fine about that post, thanks.
I am very involved in the production of Fedora. I am not involved in the production of GNOME, beyond testing it and reporting bugs - but then, I do that for KDE, MATE, LXDE, Xfce and Sugar too. I have tested all of those, reported bugs in them, and fixed bugs in several of them. I just happen to like GNOME, myself. I am not Required To Like it: RH staff working on Fedora are entirely free to use whatever the hell we like as long as our jobs get done. I know for a fact there are RH Fedora staff using every desktop/WM under the sun, and some blackhearts running OS X. I just like GNOME. I like GNOME on my spare time. No-one is paying me for it, though if the GNOME Foundation has some spare cash rattling around, I wouldn't object. :P
It's *partly* that, but not *entirely* that. That ought to be pretty obvious to anyone involved in both projects.
There's clearly a relationship between Fedora and RHEL, but Fedora has its own identity as well.
I think there are a few upstream bugs about the problem of using the global menu with apps on secondary displays, it's recognized not to be a great experience at present.
I'm sorry, I thought this was Slashdot, not a goddamn corporate conference.
I've got one person accusing me of being a PR flack, and one person accusing me of not 'treat[ing] my users with humility and respect'. You can't win around here, apparently.
I'm not claiming that GNOME 3 is perfect, or RHEL, or RHEV, or anything else to do with RH. Hell, I've never run RHEV. Or, for that matter, RHEL.
What I'm trying to do is point out that a debate people like to load up as if it's Extremely Philosophically Important really isn't. This idea that a desktop environment must somehow give the user 'complete control' of how they use their desktop is an utter fallacy. No desktop environment possibly can.
It is entirely legitimate to argue that GNOME sometimes draws the line too far towards 'developers make the decisions'. There are legitimate arguments on the other side too. But the point is that you are arguing about where to draw a line that has to exist, you are not arguing about a fundamental philosophical difference. There are decisions about where to draw that line that are pretty much objectively absurd. Then there is quite a wide spectrum within which it is somewhat reasonable to draw the line, and a whole range of different consequences for different use cases depending on where a given piece of software draws the line. I don't dispute that. I just want to point out very clearly that this is basically a technical decision, it is not some kind of Great Philosophical Conflict. GNOME is not stealing your freedoms.
It's rather like how, in many countries, you will find two political factions producing grand ideological arguments about a decision which boils down to 'should the tax rate be 42% or 43%'. It's a technical discussion about where exactly to draw a given line, it is not a huge ideological debate.
Once again, for the hard of thinking, I am not a GNOME developer. I have precisely zero commits of any kind at all to GNOME.
I'm getting paid exactly nothing to post on Slashdot. Exactly nothing. I really should be doing something more productive with my time, but I'm an idiot.
Yes. I work on Fedora. For Red Hat. I've done seven package builds in the last week - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=954 . I'm still official maintainer for a few. I contributed to several rounds of discussion on revising the packaging guidelines. And I'm the team lead for the RH team which works on the automated testing system which is ultimately intended to *enforce* some of the packaging guidelines. Credentials enough for you?
Spacewalk (which is the 'upstream' version of RH's Satellite, btw) and puppet aren't exactly intended to do the same things, AFAIK. Google has some useful results, inc. http://www.brightprocess.com/?p=306 and http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-November/085138.html . I'm no expert on the field (I'm much more down at the duct tape end) but it looks like people actually tend to use both together.
A live image needs to actually be live bootable, for a start, i.e. it needs a bootloader. We need to compress the live image to make it a tolerable size, and it needs to be built in such a way that the live installer can deploy it.
Honestly I haven't tried using puppet or anything similar to build a live image, I'm not the best guy to give you the answers. I just know what smarter cookies have told me. But you might want to talk to Kevin Fenzi about it, look him up, he'd probably be a good guy to answer questions: he's part of the release engineering team, and he's done some thinking about improving the generation process.
It speeds up network connections? Where can I get this magical software?!
What does that have to do with anything? Red Hat pays several people who work on KDE. I don't work on GNOME, I work on Fedora.
No, I'm not a GNOME dev, just someone who can think straight.
The largest possible set of configuration options for a desktop environment is only possibly accessible by writing one yourself. Imagine a desktop environment with a checkbox for absolutely every possible choice about how a DE could work. What you have just imagined is not KDE (though it's close!), but a very unwieldy programming language.
If you really want 'ultimate choice' you need an option to render the entire desktop upside down, or in inverted colours, or projected onto a sphere, or as if it were a colony of monkeys. All of these are possible configurations of a desktop environment.
When you choose to use someone else's code rather than write your own, you are *inevitably* excluding a very large set of possibilities for how that code could in fact work. The simple act of choosing to use someone else's code is *in itself* a statement that you *want that person to make a large number of choices for you*.
Once that fact is established, then in deciding exactly how many configuration options the resultant code should have we are only bickering about where to draw a line between 'choices made by the author' and 'choices left up to the user'. We are not arguing about some sort of serious principle of personal liberty.
"I don't understand why. The programs do not act consistently."
(emphasis mine)
You implied very clearly that you did not know why this was the case, and that it was some kind of intentional thing. You *do* know why it's the case, because it has previously been explained to you, and you know that it is not the intended state of affairs but merely an artifact of a long-term transition in design, yet you continue to criticize it as if it were the former rather than the latter.
"Fedora is for testing the next tech going into Red Hat's next version of RHEL. It always has been no matter what Red Hat acolytes say."
if this were true, Fedora would not have something like 5x as many packages as RHEL does.
I do love being told I don't know anything by ACs.
No, lots of people do. Just the ones who don't are loud and annoying.