Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Julien Cristau]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 18:02:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> ]] Thorsten Glaser 
> 
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> > 
> > > There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there
> > 
> > Hm, but LLVM is not available for all Debian (CPU) architectures.
> 
> Given we're talking about jessie's default and it's available for all of
> jessie's release architectures that should be fine.
> 
So far we only build llvmpipe on amd64 and i386 (both linux and
kfreebsd), though.  The other architectures get the old swrast driver.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Thorsten Glaser 

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> 
> > There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there
> 
> Hm, but LLVM is not available for all Debian (CPU) architectures.

Given we're talking about jessie's default and it's available for all of
jessie's release architectures that should be fine.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wq9shaay@aexonyam.err.no

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Thorsten Glaser]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Paul van der Vlis wrote:

> There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there

Hm, but LLVM is not available for all Debian (CPU) architectures.

bye,
//mirabilos (let’s make IceWM the default desktop and good is.)
-- 
[16:04:33] bkix: "veni vidi violini"
[16:04:45] bkix: "ich kam, sah und vergeigte"...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1408281233310.28...@tglase.lan.tarent.de

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Ondřej Surý]

Hey,

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014, at 17:56, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Hello,
> For some hardware there are no 3D drivers. E.g. in server-boards there
> are most of the time very poor GPU's. I don't use a graphical
> environment on servers myself most of the time, but I think many people
> do.

We don't have to target those (or any other weird setup) anyway with
*default* desktop environment. If anyone run graphical environment on
servers I am quite confident they can install non-default DE on the
machine.

Please, let's drop the mindset where default DE has to fit all. That's
not going to happen anyway.

O.
-- 
Ondřej Surý 
Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1408954684.4046835.156367981.2a372...@webmail.messagingengine.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Steve McIntyre]

Joss wrote:
>
>I think there are several ways to do that: 
>  * tweak the debian-cd scripts to build GNOME images for Linux
>architectures and Xfce or MATE images for !linux (I can’t tell
>how hard it is) 

It's perfectly feasible; at the moment, the debian-cd scripts on
pettersson [1,2] pull out information from the tasksel packages to
determine the default desktop etc., but that's not too difficult to
change if we agree to do it.

>  * make stripped-down gnome-core/gnome metapackages for !linux,
>relying on lightdm and gnome-flashback (that I can do) 

Possibly...

>  * hackishly make gnome-core/gnome metapackages depend directly on
>Xfce or MATE for !linux instead of GNOME (same)

Ewww, no!

[1] 
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-cd/setup.git/tree/jessie/cronjob.weekly
[2] 
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-cd/debian-cd.git/tree/tools/update_tasks

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xlcdo-0001sg...@mail.einval.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Charles Plessy]

Le Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:27:14AM +0200, intrigeri a écrit :
> 
> Paul van der Vlis wrote (21 Aug 2014 15:56:53 GMT) :
> > There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there
> > is no 3D video driver. [...] How does it work on older machines?
> 
> I'm particularly interested in this question, e.g. on machines in the
> ThinkPad X32 / X60 / X61 class.

Hi,

I am running GNOME 3 on a ThinkPad X61 (1.5 Gb RAM; second-hand SSD) and I am
totally satisfied.  I do not see much difference compared with when I run
GNOME 3 on a quad-core i7 iMac with the proprietary Radeon drivers.

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140822053755.gb28...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[intrigeri]

Hi,

Paul van der Vlis wrote (21 Aug 2014 15:56:53 GMT) :
> There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there
> is no 3D video driver. [...] How does it work on older machines?

I'm particularly interested in this question, e.g. on machines in the
ThinkPad X32 / X60 / X61 class.

FWIW, I share Ben's good experience in KVM guests.

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8538cp14ct@boum.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 21 août 2014 à 13:17 -0700, Ben Hutchings a écrit : 
> It works for me in a KVM/QEMU VM with cirrus emulation.  That has no 3D
> acceleration, and I am viewing the display with VNC.  As I understand
> it, the composition and animation effects are simplified when LLVMpipe
> is being used, so it is reasonably responsive.

I’m not sure they are. It’s just that LLVMpipe is really awesome :)

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408656889.4414.2.camel@tomoyo

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 17:56 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Here my points about using Gnome 3.12:
> 
> Gnome 3.12 depends on 3D video drivers or a emulation of that. In Gnome
> 3.4 (Wheezy) there was a "fallback mode", but that's gone. There is now
> something called "GNOME Classic" but that still needs 3D drivers. It's
> only more "classic" with menu's etc.
> 
> There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there
> is no 3D video driver. I don't know how well it works. Maybe here is
> somebody with more information?  Is it automatically used in Debian,
> when the videocard is not supported? How does it work on older machines?

It is used automatically.

[...]
> For some hardware there are no 3D drivers. E.g. in server-boards there
> are most of the time very poor GPU's. I don't use a graphical
> environment on servers myself most of the time, but I think many people
> do. Not sure LLVMpipe is really useable.

It is.

> Another point is desktop sharing. I use X2go and it does not work with
> Gnome in 3D mode. Is here somebody who can tell me if VNC or RDP or
> something else works? I must say that I don't like VNC, because it's
> very slow. X2go is really fast.
> 
> Another point are virtual machines. Does Gnome 3.12 work fine inside
> many virtual machines?
[...]

It works for me in a KVM/QEMU VM with cirrus emulation.  That has no 3D
acceleration, and I am viewing the display with VNC.  As I understand
it, the composition and animation effects are simplified when LLVMpipe
is being used, so it is reasonably responsive.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Paul van der Vlis]

Hello,

Here my points about using Gnome 3.12:

Gnome 3.12 depends on 3D video drivers or a emulation of that. In Gnome
3.4 (Wheezy) there was a "fallback mode", but that's gone. There is now
something called "GNOME Classic" but that still needs 3D drivers. It's
only more "classic" with menu's etc.

There is something called LLVMpipe, it's a software fallback when there
is no 3D video driver. I don't know how well it works. Maybe here is
somebody with more information?  Is it automatically used in Debian,
when the videocard is not supported? How does it work on older machines?

There is something called "Gnome Flashback", but the version in Debian
is for Gnome 3.8, and the latest beta from upstream is for Gnome 3.10.
Not sure there will be a 3.12 version in time. It's not official, and
maybe the wrong way to go.

I saw with Debian Wheezy that some 3D drivers are really buggy (e.g.
nouveau). Maybe it's better now?

For some hardware there are no 3D drivers. E.g. in server-boards there
are most of the time very poor GPU's. I don't use a graphical
environment on servers myself most of the time, but I think many people
do. Not sure LLVMpipe is really useable.

Another point is desktop sharing. I use X2go and it does not work with
Gnome in 3D mode. Is here somebody who can tell me if VNC or RDP or
something else works? I must say that I don't like VNC, because it's
very slow. X2go is really fast.

Another point are virtual machines. Does Gnome 3.12 work fine inside
many virtual machines?

Does Gnome 3.12 work on LTSP?

Gnome 3.12 depends on GDM3 when I am not wrong. After some timeout GDM3
comes into a mode where a user who don't know how it works does not find
a way to login. I really don't like that.

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.


-- 
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lt54s5$8ar$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Mike Gabriel]

Hi Svante, hi all,

On  Fr 15 Aug 2014 11:02:28 CEST, Svante Signell wrote:


Please don't top post!

On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 15:12 +0100, envite wrote:

Why not MATE for all and put a11y into it?

Makes more sense for e.g. small computers like those in 3rd World  
talked before.


Enviado de Samsung Mobile


I'm all for it, and am willing to help making it happen. With MATE all
architectures could have the same desktop default. Who are the packaging
teams to join?


The DDPO page is found at [1].

Active DDs in the MATE team are John Paul Adrian Glaubitz and $me.

The MATE packaging is also supported by several non-DDs. The MATE team  
intensely cooperates with those people bringing MATE into Ubuntu. One  
of the main upstream devs (Stefano Karapetsas) is also member of the  
MATE packaging team.


We meet&work on Freenode (#debian-mate) and plan to migrate smoothly  
to OFTC sooner or later (#debian-mate).


Greets,
Mike

[1]  
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mate-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org#mate-power-manager

--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb


pgp5nvdrW1as7.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Svante Signell]

Please don't top post!

On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 15:12 +0100, envite wrote:
> Why not MATE for all and put a11y into it?
> 
> Makes more sense for e.g. small computers like those in 3rd World talked 
> before. 
> 
> Enviado de Samsung Mobile

I'm all for it, and am willing to help making it happen. With MATE all
architectures could have the same desktop default. Who are the packaging
teams to join?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408093348.2372.5.camel@PackardBell-PC

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hi,

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I think there are several ways to do that: 
[...]
>   * make stripped-down gnome-core/gnome metapackages for !linux,
> relying on lightdm and gnome-flashback (that I can do) 

I believe this should be done. It's also in the spirit of providing
something useful on those architectures. Having non-installable gnome
metapackages is not very friendly to users of those architectures.

We could possibly also tweak debian-cd to do something else on non-linux
but in general I think it's best if we limit differences across
architectures when it can be avoided. Architecture specific documentation
may recommend users to use the (non-default) Xfce image if that's the
preferred image according to porters.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140814161939.gb2...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi Josselin,

here's my take as d-i release guy. That's basically in line with
Christian's except for the last answer.

I'm also putting -boot@ in Cc so that other d-i members can voice their
opinions. Full mail can be found at:
  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/08/msg00432.html


Josselin Mouette  (2014-08-14):
> → Is the installation CD size still relevant?

If everything doesn't fit on CD#1 alone, too bad. Definitely not a
blocker. See, we released wheezy while CD#1 on i386 (without a net
mirror) isn't sufficient to install a whole desktop. We "just" need to
stop pretending it does (I stumbled upon at least such a page on
www.debian.org lately).

For those questioning the usefulness of those images: as a (maybe not
so) random debian-cd witness, keeping on building CDs is just a matter
of I/O on pettersson.debian.org, so I don't see why we should stop
building CD images if some users still find them useful.

> → What is the target audience of Debian-installer for the default
> image?

[ Replying with s/image/desktop/ in mind. ]

What Christian says.

It seems to me it's quite fair to imagine that so called “power users”
are very much able not to pick the default desktop and install their
beloved desktop environement or custom window manager instead.

> → What is the required level of accessibility?

Very high. At the very least we must not regress from a release to
another. Xfce is currently a pretty big regression in that area (which
explains the wording I used in my Beta 1 announce, pointing to Gnome
images instead).

> → Will you configure different defaults for different architectures?

If we're going to be back for Gnome as a default, we will likely need to
handle per-architecture defaults, since Gnome on non-Linux isn't going
to be supported (by either Gnome upstream, by Gnome Debian maintainers,
or by GNU/kFreeBSD porters, as far as I understand it).

If we're ending up implementing what I alluded to in my first reply to
this thread (in a nutshell: look at installable task-*-desktop packages,
propose a list, defaulting to whatever we prefer), that's likely doable.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[envite]

Why not MATE for all and put a11y into it?

Makes more sense for e.g. small computers like those in 3rd World talked 
before. 

Enviado de Samsung Mobile

 Mensaje original 
De: Josselin Mouette  
Fecha:14/08/2014  10:48  (GMT+00:00) 
Para: debian-devel@lists.debian.org 
Asunto: Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop 

Le jeudi 14 août 2014 à 08:53 +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit : 
> > → Will you configure different defaults for different architectures?
> 
> Given the current architecture of tasksel, I think it requires
> important changes to the code and nearly nobody contributes to the
> code: tasksel is in maintenance only mode with easy to fix bugs being
> fixed as well as bugs or fixes required to cope with changes in
> installed packages.

Since a11y looks like a compelling argument to go back to GNOME by
default, I think we must address that point one way or another if we
want it to happen.

I think there are several ways to do that: 
  * tweak the debian-cd scripts to build GNOME images for Linux
    architectures and Xfce or MATE images for !linux (I can’t tell
    how hard it is) 
  * make stripped-down gnome-core/gnome metapackages for !linux,
    relying on lightdm and gnome-flashback (that I can do) 
  * hackishly make gnome-core/gnome metapackages depend directly on
    Xfce or MATE for !linux instead of GNOME (same)

Overall, a gnome-flashback solution would probably be more featureful,
but it is clearly less maintained than e.g. Xfce.

-- 
.''`.    Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408009711.20025.6.camel@dsp0698014

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 14 août 2014 à 08:53 +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit : 
> > → Will you configure different defaults for different architectures?
> 
> Given the current architecture of tasksel, I think it requires
> important changes to the code and nearly nobody contributes to the
> code: tasksel is in maintenance only mode with easy to fix bugs being
> fixed as well as bugs or fixes required to cope with changes in
> installed packages.

Since a11y looks like a compelling argument to go back to GNOME by
default, I think we must address that point one way or another if we
want it to happen.

I think there are several ways to do that: 
  * tweak the debian-cd scripts to build GNOME images for Linux
architectures and Xfce or MATE images for !linux (I can’t tell
how hard it is) 
  * make stripped-down gnome-core/gnome metapackages for !linux,
relying on lightdm and gnome-flashback (that I can do) 
  * hackishly make gnome-core/gnome metapackages depend directly on
Xfce or MATE for !linux instead of GNOME (same)

Overall, a gnome-flashback solution would probably be more featureful,
but it is clearly less maintained than e.g. Xfce.

-- 
 .''`.Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408009711.20025.6.camel@dsp0698014

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Joseph Neal]

Can we please keep accessibility for the disabled in mind too?

Unless Debian wants to be completely ableist, Gnome and KDE are the only 
two viable options.


I worked in adaptive technology for years training blind users to use 
JAWS under windows.  I think it's great that similar technology now 
exists in the free software ecosystem.  It would be a shame to leave it 
out based purely on the needs of sighted users.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ec7682.40...@speakeasy.net

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org):

> I’d like the thread to be useful, and for that goal it would be much
> appreciated if the d-i team could you tell us what the relevant criteria
> are and what people need to work on.

Here is my opinion. Please take it as "opinion of someone who's been
involved in D-I for 10 years and pretends having a rough idea of the
D-I goals". So, indeed, not much more than the personal opinion of an
old chap...

> 
> → Is the installation CD size still relevant?

IMHO, no. I've seen most of the arguments about bandwidth in so-called
"3rd world", use on old hardware, blah, blah blah and I'm not convinced
at all.

> → What is the target audience of Debian-installer for the default
> image?

Average users with little or no experience of Linux but still, in some
way, technically skilled. In the past, with Joeyh, we were calling
these "Bob users" instead of "Joe users"

> → What is the required level of accessibility?

A high as possible. A11y has always been a priority for the D-I team,
assuming we have the manpower and skills for it (thankfully, Samuel
helps a lot in that for years).


> → Will you configure different defaults for different architectures?


Given the current architecture of tasksel, I think it requires
important changes to the code and nearly nobody contributes to the
code: tasksel is in maintenance only mode with easy to fix bugs being
fixed as well as bugs or fixes required to cope with changes in
installed packages.

FWIW, my current personal opinion would be "revert back to GNOME as
default".




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Roger Lynn]

On 07/08/14 23:10, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Popularity: One of the metrics discussed by the tasksel change proponents
> mentioned popcon numbers. 8 months after the desktop change, Xfce does not 
> seem
> to have made a dent on install numbers.  The Debian GNOME team doesn’t feel
> popcon’s data is any better than a random online poll though, as it’s an 
> opt-in
> service which the vast majority of users don’t enable.

What proportion of people installing testing or unstable will just go along
with the default? Won't most people choosing the default options be using
the stable installer? It would therefore be difficult to collect any
meaningful data at all from popcon until there was stable release with
changed defaults.

Roger


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/608tbb-4km@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Anthony F McInerney]

>
>
> I’d like the thread to be useful, and for that goal it would be much
> appreciated if the d-i team could you tell us what the relevant criteria
> are and what people need to work on.
>
> → Is the installation CD size still relevant?
> → What is the target audience of Debian-installer for the default image?
> → What is the required level of accessibility?
> → Will you configure different defaults for different architectures?
>

I concur with this message, i also ask that whatever DE is chosen that they
are open to change of default packages, default settings and default
recommends. So that the debian default is a reflection not of that DE but
of debian actually doing something proactive with it.
I'd also like to note that HiDPI appears (as per my message which was not
commented on) appears to be completely irrelevant as no current solution in
debian appears to support it fully.

On 14 August 2014 00:32, Simon McVittie  wrote:

>but they can at least be good for people who
>don't know which they prefer, because those people are reliant on the
>default.

Which i believe concurs with my statement above.

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:34:46PM -0400, Hashem Nasarat wrote:
> 
> The following "first party" extensions are developed along with
> gnome-shell and are updated for each gnome-shell release.
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell-extensions/tree/extensions
> 
> Extensions on https://extensions.gnome.org/ are the ones that are often
> late with updating based on new releases.

I note that the workspace grid extension (which seems to be the only
way you can get a 2-dimensional workspace) is not a "first party"
extension.  So if you depend on it, you are more at risk than usual if
you use GNOME

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813234404.gd28...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Simon McVittie]

On 13/08/14 23:08, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> the common reaction I get from new Linux users [...]
> I would also recommend to go for
> this user group when selecting a default, since any more experienced
> user can absolutely be expected to pick the right image with their
> favourite flavour of Debian, or change some options in the installer.
> Unexperienced users usually don't really know what they want, so
> selecting a good default for them would be useful.

Yes, this. Debian's defaults are never going to please everyone, because
you can't default to GNOME, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, fvwm, awesome, ratpoison
etc. all at the same time; but they can at least be good for people who
don't know which they prefer, because those people are reliant on the
default.

S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ebf59c.5080...@debian.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 12 août 2014 à 12:26 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : 
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Do you intend to review (or are you reviewing) the decision taken in
> > July 2012 [1] ?  If so, is this discussion here on -devel useful ?  If
> > it is useful, what questions should we be focusing on ?
> 
> See my 1st message to this thread.
> 
> Can't say I've found most of the thread useful.

I’d like the thread to be useful, and for that goal it would be much
appreciated if the d-i team could you tell us what the relevant criteria
are and what people need to work on.

→ Is the installation CD size still relevant?
→ What is the target audience of Debian-installer for the default image?
→ What is the required level of accessibility?
→ Will you configure different defaults for different architectures?

Thanks for your input.
-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1407972375.4321.3.camel@tomoyo

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Hashem Nasarat]

On 08/13/2014 06:08 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2014-08-13 22:59 GMT+02:00 Theodore Ts'o :
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18:49PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>> Well, Linus' extensions won't break because GNOME updates them with
>>> every release and ships them with the official GNOME release.
>>
>> From the README found in "gnome-shell-extensions" sources:
>>
>> GNOME Shell Extensions is a collection of extensions providing additional
>> and optional functionality to GNOME Shell.
>> Since GNOME Shell is not API stable, extensions work only against a very
>> specific version of the shell, usually the same as this package (see
>> "configure --version"). Also, since extensions are built from many
>> individual contributors, we cannot guarantee stability or quality for any
>> specific extension.
>> For these reasons, distributions are advised to avoid installing or 
>> packaging
>> this module by default.
> That's odd - I remember someone from the GNOME folks saying that they
> develop these extensions together with the Shell and as part of
> official GNOME so they do not break and users can rely on them.
> Also, they provide the stuff needed for GNOME Classic, which is the
> default desktop on RHEL (so I kind of expect that stuff to work and to
> be developed in future).
> But that README file is indeed very clear about the extensions repo...
> 

The following "first party" extensions are developed along with
gnome-shell and are updated for each gnome-shell release.
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell-extensions/tree/extensions

Extensions on https://extensions.gnome.org/ are the ones that are often
late with updating based on new releases.

(My perspective as a Debian user: I cannot bring myself to recommend
Debian to GNU/Linux newcomers, and those not interested in tinkering
with packages and DEs, if the default DE isn't comparable (in terms of
usability, features, design) to GNOME.  If this is the case, I will
sadly recommend Mint, Fedora, or some Ubuntu flavor instead, which all
have demonstrated more of a focus to those not in the ivory tower).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ebe806.6040...@gmail.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Matthias Klumpp]

2014-08-13 22:59 GMT+02:00 Theodore Ts'o :
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18:49PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> Well, Linus' extensions won't break because GNOME updates them with
>> every release and ships them with the official GNOME release.
>
> From the README found in "gnome-shell-extensions" sources:
>
> GNOME Shell Extensions is a collection of extensions providing additional
> and optional functionality to GNOME Shell.
> Since GNOME Shell is not API stable, extensions work only against a very
> specific version of the shell, usually the same as this package (see
> "configure --version"). Also, since extensions are built from many
> individual contributors, we cannot guarantee stability or quality for any
> specific extension.
> For these reasons, distributions are advised to avoid installing or 
> packaging
> this module by default.
That's odd - I remember someone from the GNOME folks saying that they
develop these extensions together with the Shell and as part of
official GNOME so they do not break and users can rely on them.
Also, they provide the stuff needed for GNOME Classic, which is the
default desktop on RHEL (so I kind of expect that stuff to work and to
be developed in future).
But that README file is indeed very clear about the extensions repo...

> So again, it'll be interesting to see how many extensions work when
> 3.14 gets released, and how many just break or just silently
> disappear
>
> Of course, not anything which is officially in GNOME is guaranteed to
> stick around, either.  Functionality which is part of "official" GNOME
> have commonly disappeared in a version "upgrade" as well, and the
> Gnome Shell Extensions has a lesser guarantee of stability than
> features in core GNOME.
>
> At least for me, it's a case of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
> twice, shame on me."
That's why I use KDE (GNOME also has some small annoyances like having
to delete things in Nautilus using ALT+ENTF etc.) - but admittedly,
the GNOME experience is very usable, and the common reaction I get
from new Linux users is some kind of "wow" effect, since they like the
clean and modern design of GNOME as well as it's workflow, which lets
people focus on screen content instead of desktop chrome.
So if that's the people we want to reach with the default desktop,
GNOME is certainly a good option. I would also recommend to go for
this user group when selecting a default, since any more experienced
user can absolutely be expected to pick the right image with their
favourite flavour of Debian, or change some options in the installer.
Unexperienced users usually don't really know what they want, so
selecting a good default for them would be useful.
People for computers with low specs could pick an image with Xfce or
LXQt and experience a great desktop environment - since there isn't
really a "second class" desktop in Debian, only different levels of
how well something is maintained.
Cheers,
Matthias

P.S: Of course, KDE Plasma would also be a great choice as DE
default-selection ;-)

-- 
Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caknhny8nek6aw3zeyrxzrbvmvfsb4apherxm1vsgc5tpacs...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18:49PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Well, Linus' extensions won't break because GNOME updates them with
> every release and ships them with the official GNOME release.

>From the README found in "gnome-shell-extensions" sources:

GNOME Shell Extensions is a collection of extensions providing additional
and optional functionality to GNOME Shell.
Since GNOME Shell is not API stable, extensions work only against a very
specific version of the shell, usually the same as this package (see
"configure --version"). Also, since extensions are built from many
individual contributors, we cannot guarantee stability or quality for any
specific extension.
For these reasons, distributions are advised to avoid installing or 
packaging
this module by default.

So again, it'll be interesting to see how many extensions work when
3.14 gets released, and how many just break or just silently
disappear

Of course, not anything which is officially in GNOME is guaranteed to
stick around, either.  Functionality which is part of "official" GNOME
have commonly disappeared in a version "upgrade" as well, and the
Gnome Shell Extensions has a lesser guarantee of stability than
features in core GNOME.

At least for me, it's a case of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me."

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813205924.gc28...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Matthias Klumpp]

2014-08-13 22:05 GMT+02:00 Anthony F McInerney :
>> But I'm actually back to gnome3 because with the right
>>  extensions it is more pleasant."
>
> So the question is does debian have the extensions he speaks of?
> (and) Have debian tweaked those extensions by default, to his liking?
>
> And to quote a not so famous computer user who said "what's that crap on the
> screen, i don't like that, why have they made it look like android"(main
> gnome3 menu + app list) and "i can't login to your laptop now". (GDM3)
> I asked for no opinion or expressed one either way. But since we're now just
> quoting things people said.
> The user has far more experience with windows in general, but has no
> problems with lightdm+ e17. (never seen xfce)
> Again i suppose it depends who debian is targetting by default.
Well, Linus' extensions won't break because GNOME updates them with
every release and ships them with the official GNOME release.
They are also available in Debian:
https://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-shell-extensions
In order to use a "classic" GNOME, the only thing the user has to do
on a Debian installation is (if the extensions package is installed)
to select "GNOME Classic" from the login screen.
So it's not complicated at all.
Cheers,
Matthias

-- 
Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caknhny_p64kxeppqaqu5nmtbq3eogzzoxsuqzocp8hhgxsu...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Anthony F McInerney]

>
> But I'm actually back to gnome3 because with the right
>  extensions it is more pleasant."
>
So the question is does debian have the extensions he speaks of?
(and) Have debian tweaked those extensions by default, to his liking?

And to quote a not so famous computer user who said "what's that crap on
the screen, i don't like that, why have they made it look like
android"(main gnome3 menu + app list) and "i can't login to your laptop
now". (GDM3)
I asked for no opinion or expressed one either way. But since we're now
just quoting things people said.
The user has far more experience with windows in general, but has no
problems with lightdm+ e17. (never seen xfce)
Again i suppose it depends who debian is targetting by default.

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:09:25PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> To quote a fairly famous Linux user who eventually came back from XFCE
> to GNOME: "But I'm actually back to gnome3 because with the right
> extensions it is more pleasant."[1]
> 
> But I'm not sure if he qualifies as a power user or is just another guy
> who like Windows 8 or OS X. *scnr*

I wait with bated breath when the next GNOME version update breaks all
of his extensions (as GNOME version updates are wont to do).  And then
when he complains, hopefully he won't swear too much, when he's told
that it's his fault for depending on GNOME extensions, since there is
zero guarantees of compatibility given by GNOME.

(This is Linus "thou shalt not break userspace" Torvalds we're talking
about.  And the GNOME extensions are the diametric opposite of that
philosophy.)

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813194109.gb28...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

On 08/13/2014 15:43, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Is it the power user?  Is it developers?  Is it the typical users I've
> seen on Launchpad, such that I've largely stopped dealing with bug
> reports there --- far too many Ubuntu users can't file a proper bug
> report, and then other Ubuntu users Google their symptoms, and drop in
> irrelevant observation for problems that superficially have the same
> symptoms, but are about something else entirely?
> 
> If you want Debian to target people who like Windows 8, or maybe Mac
> OS, then GNOME or Unity is the right default DE.  If you don't care
> about servicing the needs of your current user base, and instead want
> to chase after (hopefully) potentially new users, the way the GNOME
> project has done, by all means, go with GNOME.

To quote a fairly famous Linux user who eventually came back from XFCE
to GNOME: "But I'm actually back to gnome3 because with the right
extensions it is more pleasant."[1]

But I'm not sure if he qualifies as a power user or is just another guy
who like Windows 8 or OS X. *scnr*

Ansgar

  [1] One of the comments to the post
  https://plus.google.com/115250422803614415116/posts/KygiWsQc4Wm


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53eb7195.2080...@debian.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Axel Wagner]

Hi,

Theodore Ts'o  writes:
> This is actually the core (hidden) question which I think is driving
> the whole debate.  Ignoring the claims of Debian as the "universal
> operating system", what audience does Debian what to target by default
> in its installer?

Agreed. Though "default" is a very important word here, that you seem to
have omitted in the rest of the mail. You don't have to give up
targeting devs and similar, to try to get new users by having
noob-friendly defaults.

Best,

Axel Wagner


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/878umsiiz7.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:17:10PM -0700, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> 
> That's why I see GNOME 3 as a tablet environment. I'd love to use a
> tablet with GNOME 3. But using it in a desktop just reduces the
> communication between me and my computer. What is Debian?

This is actually the core (hidden) question which I think is driving
the whole debate.  Ignoring the claims of Debian as the "universal
operating system", what audience does Debian what to target by default
in its installer?

Is it the power user?  Is it developers?  Is it the typical users I've
seen on Launchpad, such that I've largely stopped dealing with bug
reports there --- far too many Ubuntu users can't file a proper bug
report, and then other Ubuntu users Google their symptoms, and drop in
irrelevant observation for problems that superficially have the same
symptoms, but are about something else entirely?

If you want Debian to target people who like Windows 8, or maybe Mac
OS, then GNOME or Unity is the right default DE.  If you don't care
about servicing the needs of your current user base, and instead want
to chase after (hopefully) potentially new users, the way the GNOME
project has done, by all means, go with GNOME.

I have a slight bias towards XFCE, but honestly, it's for primarily
selfish reasons --- I don't want the sort of bug reports that
Launchpad gets; the vast majority of bugs filed with the BTS are by
people with whom I can work with to fix bugs, and as a result packages
such as e2sprogs get better for everyone.  And so very selfishly, I
don't want that signal to get drowned out by the noise which is
Launchpad, and so I'd prefer that Ubuntu continue to target the
Windows 8 and Mac OS user market.

It may be that Debian would like to go after the same thing.  If so,
I'll be sad, but given that I can always install some other DE, at the
end of the day it doesn't make that much difference to my personal
workflow, since I can always override the default.

Cheers,

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813134330.ga28...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2014-08-12, Octavio Alvarez  wrote:
>
>
> On 09/08/14 04:30, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting envite (2014-08-09 10:43:25)
>>> XFCE (does not mount my USB disks)
>> 
>> Did you perhaps suppress recommends?
>
> Should this really be a Recommends?

It surely fits the definition of Recommends.

| The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
| with this one in all but unusual installations.

/Sune


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lsf8mk$10i$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 13 août 2014 00:37 -0007, Cameron Norman  :

> Probably relevant to Michael's inquiry: can we just get a few
> screenshots? It would be a lot easier to compare.

http://imgur.com/CzZblwH
http://imgur.com/z42IMOD
http://imgur.com/8hnR0NS

Only configuration done is settings font DPI (+ zoom to 150% in
Chromium).
-- 
panic("kmem_cache_init(): Offsets are wrong - I've been messed with!");
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/mm/slab.c


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 13 août 2014 02:06 +0200, Michael Biebl  :

>>> If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the instructions
>>> posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
>>> scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.
>> 
>> As I am using awesome, window decorations, desktop icons are quite
>> unknown to me. What gets scaled for free is all the GTK and QT widgets.
>
> Does that include UI elements which do *not* contain text, like
> scrollbars?

Yes, it does.
-- 
printk("Penguin %d is stuck in the bottle.\n", i);
2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc/kernel/smp.c


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Cameron Norman]

El mar, 12 de ago 2014 a las 5:06 , Michael Biebl  
escribió:

Am 13.08.2014 01:59, schrieb Vincent Bernat:

  ❦ 13 août 2014 01:44 +0200, Michael Biebl  :

 I can not confirm your findings.

 If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the 
instructions

 posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
 scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.
 
 As I am using awesome, window decorations, desktop icons are quite
 unknown to me. What gets scaled for free is all the GTK and QT 
widgets.


Does that include UI elements which do *not* contain text, like 
scrollbars?


Probably relevant to Michael's inquiry: can we just get a few 
screenshots? It would be a lot easier to compare.


Best regards,
--
Cameron

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 01:44:43AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 
> If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the instructions
> posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
> scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.

That's a fair comment.

The UI elements which I care about, which are the icons in the panels
are scaled with the size of the panels.  The same is true with the
icons in the notification panel and window buttons.

There are are a few UI elements, such as the window decorations which
aren't scaled, but I actually prefer them to be small.

The only UI elements where it has really bothered me has been in the
Chrome Browser, and that problem is DE independent, since Gnome uses
Aura and not GTK.

The bottom line is that XFCE is actually pretty usable even on a HiDPI
screen.

Cheers,

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813013737.ga5...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Octavio Alvarez]

On 12/08/14 15:44, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>> So that's my experience with Xfce and HiDPI displays; at least for
>>> this hacker, it was orders of magnitude less painful than dealing with
>>> GNOME.  :-)
>>
>> I would appreciate if you went into a little detail on what pain you had
>> with GNOME for comparison purposes.
> 
> It's the usual frustrations, that have been aired a million times
> before[1].  Struggling with the GNOME equivalent of the Windows Registry,
> wanting to use a 2D workspace, struggling as random GNOME extensions
> break when GNOME releases a new version, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> [1] http://felipec.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/the-problem-with-gnome-3/
> 
> Basically, I can be effective and efficient with Xfce.  I can't say
> the same about GNOME, as a power user.  Which is OK, since I'm clearly
> not the target audience for the GNOME project.  Oh, well

I can't agree more, with you and the blog post. I will go further.

Xfce does not break a paradigm, it uses less than half the RAM, which
allows me to do more things simultaneously and doesn't do unexpected
things. Xfce customizability is built in. Under GNOME I have to install
a tweaker to make it remotely do what I expect.

Over time, GNOME 3 increasingly consumes more RAM. The same happens with
X.org. Xfce behavior is definitely not as bad. I've been told this has
to do with heap fragmentation but I don't buy it. I don't have numbers
but I would think HF to cause 20% of the increasingly-consumed RAM behavior.

By default, GNOME 3 hides the notification area from view and only one
application button can be seen at a time. One of the most common and
important tasks, "application switching", is a two-step process now: 1)
open the 'Activities' view to see what windows do I have open. 2) Look
for it with the eyes and click. In the traditional desktop, the first
step is eliminated. That's possibly desirable in a tablet where screen
resources are invaluable, but not in a workstation where
user-to-computer "bandwidth" must be maximized and screen are not
touch-sensitive.

That's why I see GNOME 3 as a tablet environment. I'd love to use a
tablet with GNOME 3. But using it in a desktop just reduces the
communication between me and my computer. What is Debian?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53eaae86.5070...@alvarezp.ods.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Russ Allbery]

Octavio Alvarez  writes:
> On 09/08/14 04:30, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting envite (2014-08-09 10:43:25)
>>> XFCE (does not mount my USB disks)

>> Did you perhaps suppress recommends?

> Should this really be a Recommends?

Yes.

I have no need for and no desire for automatic USB disk mounting, and do
not want to be forced to install that package on my Xfce system.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oavpgsiz@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Michael Biebl]

Am 13.08.2014 01:59, schrieb Vincent Bernat:
>  ❦ 13 août 2014 01:44 +0200, Michael Biebl  :
>> I can not confirm your findings.
>>
>> If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the instructions
>> posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
>> scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.
> 
> As I am using awesome, window decorations, desktop icons are quite
> unknown to me. What gets scaled for free is all the GTK and QT widgets.

Does that include UI elements which do *not* contain text, like scrollbars?


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 13 août 2014 01:44 +0200, Michael Biebl  :

>>> Scaling fonts alone is not sufficient if you want to properly support
>>> HiDPI displays. You really want all UI elements to be scaling up,
>>> otherwise icons etc get tiny and very hard to hit.
>>>
>>> XFCE does not deal with that problem at all.
>> 
>> Everything seems to use DPI settings for that. You set DPI and scaling
>> happens for other parts of the interface.
>
> I can not confirm your findings.
>
> If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the instructions
> posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
> scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.

As I am using awesome, window decorations, desktop icons are quite
unknown to me. What gets scaled for free is all the GTK and QT widgets.
-- 
printk(KERN_WARNING "Multi-volume CD somehow got mounted.\n");
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/fs/isofs/inode.c


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Octavio Alvarez]

On 09/08/14 04:30, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi envite,
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Quoting envite (2014-08-09 10:43:25)
>> XFCE (does not mount my USB disks)
> 
> Did you perhaps suppress recommends?

Should this really be a Recommends?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53eaa6ce.8020...@alvarezp.ods.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Michael Biebl]

Am 13.08.2014 01:19, schrieb Vincent Bernat:
>  ❦ 13 août 2014 00:25 +0200, Michael Biebl  :

>> Scaling fonts alone is not sufficient if you want to properly support
>> HiDPI displays. You really want all UI elements to be scaling up,
>> otherwise icons etc get tiny and very hard to hit.
>>
>> XFCE does not deal with that problem at all.
> 
> Everything seems to use DPI settings for that. You set DPI and scaling
> happens for other parts of the interface.

I can not confirm your findings.

If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the instructions
posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 13 août 2014 00:25 +0200, Michael Biebl  :

>> Joey,
>> 
>> With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
>> Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
>> setting things up was fairly straight forward.  I got most of what I
>> needed by setting Custom DPI Setting in Settings -> Appearance ->
>> Fonts -> DPI.
>
> Scaling fonts alone is not sufficient if you want to properly support
> HiDPI displays. You really want all UI elements to be scaling up,
> otherwise icons etc get tiny and very hard to hit.
>
> XFCE does not deal with that problem at all.

Everything seems to use DPI settings for that. You set DPI and scaling
happens for other parts of the interface. I am not using a DE and I set
DPI through xrdb.
-- 
 /* Am I fucking pedantic or what? */
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Anthony F McInerney]

On 12 August 2014 23:25, Michael Biebl  wrote:

>
> Scaling fonts alone is not sufficient if you want to properly support
> HiDPI displays. You really want all UI elements to be scaling up,
> otherwise icons etc get tiny and very hard to hit.
>
> XFCE does not deal with that problem at all.
>
> --
> Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
> universe are pointed away from Earth?
>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HiDPI

For cairo I think you might be able to elaborate on this, in terms of
gnome/gtk3 HiDPI support in debian currently. If this is true are you
planning to cherry pick any git commits for it or waiting for cairo to
release upstream. (please forgive if this is not true, it seems relevant to
what is being asked)

"Note: gtk3 3.10 and 3.12 require HiDPI support in cairo, but the current
release (cairo 1.12.16-2) does not yet have this support. In order to
enable full HiDPI support for Gtk3 programs, you will have to build
cairo-git and then rebuild gtk3 off of these newer cairo libraries."
"To enable HiDPI, set your interface factor scaling using gsettings:
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface scaling-factor 2"

The rest of the page goes on to describe the current status for other DE's
too and seems quite informative, it also includes information on iceweasel
and chromium.

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:33:03PM -0007, Cameron Norman wrote:
> >With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
> >Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
> >setting things up was fairly straight forward.  I got most of what I
> >needed by setting Custom DPI Setting in Settings -> Appearance ->
> >Fonts -> DPI.
> 
> Did you have to edit anything else as well? I wonder if there could be some
> installer hook that detects DPI and adjusts these settings automatically...

As far as screen resolution was concerned, that was pretty much about it.

As near as I can tell, My Thinkpad doesn't actually export any EDID or
DDC information from which you could get the DPI information.  So
unless you wanted to use a database of common laptop signatures, cross
check that with the screen resolution (the T540p has different DPI's
depending whether you upgrade LCD panel, and to what resolution), it's
not clear to me how practical it would be to automate this, due to the
problems with the "detect the DPI" step.

Assuming you can detect the DPI (and life gets entertaining the user
has an external monitor hooked up --- so you need to decide between
using the DPI of the LCD panel or the external monitor), using the
command-line toole xfconf-query to actually adject the setting is
pretty simple.

> >So that's my experience with Xfce and HiDPI displays; at least for
> >this hacker, it was orders of magnitude less painful than dealing with
> >GNOME.  :-)
> 
> I would appreciate if you went into a little detail on what pain you had
> with GNOME for comparison purposes.

It's the usual frustrations, that have been aired a million times
before[1].  Struggling with the GNOME equivalent of the Windows Registry,
wanting to use a 2D workspace, struggling as random GNOME extensions
break when GNOME releases a new version, etc., etc., etc.

[1] http://felipec.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/the-problem-with-gnome-3/

Basically, I can be effective and efficient with Xfce.  I can't say
the same about GNOME, as a power user.  Which is OK, since I'm clearly
not the target audience for the GNOME project.  Oh, well

Cheers,

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140812224439.gj12...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Michael Biebl]

Am 12.08.2014 21:11, schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> See my 1st message to this thread.
> 
> Joey,
> 
> With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
> Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
> setting things up was fairly straight forward.  I got most of what I
> needed by setting Custom DPI Setting in Settings -> Appearance ->
> Fonts -> DPI.

Scaling fonts alone is not sufficient if you want to properly support
HiDPI displays. You really want all UI elements to be scaling up,
otherwise icons etc get tiny and very hard to hit.

XFCE does not deal with that problem at all.

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Cameron Norman]

El mar, 12 de ago 2014 a las 12:11 , Theodore Ts'o  
escribió:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:

 See my 1st message to this thread.


Joey,

With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
setting things up was fairly straight forward.  I got most of what I
needed by setting Custom DPI Setting in Settings -> Appearance ->
Fonts -> DPI.


Did you have to edit anything else as well? I wonder if there could be 
some installer hook that detects DPI and adjusts these settings 
automatically...




The main pain point that I've had is that Google Chrome doesn't
support HiDPI very well.  I've manually adjusted the zoom level which
mostly compensates almost everything except the buttons on the
toolbar, but that's a problem which is independent of the desktop
environment, and won't be fixed until Aura support for Linux
arrives[1].

[1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143619

So that's my experience with Xfce and HiDPI displays; at least for
this hacker, it was orders of magnitude less painful than dealing with
GNOME.  :-)


I would appreciate if you went into a little detail on what pain you 
had with GNOME for comparison purposes.


Thank you,
--
Cameron



Cheers,

- Ted

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> See my 1st message to this thread.

Joey,

With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
setting things up was fairly straight forward.  I got most of what I
needed by setting Custom DPI Setting in Settings -> Appearance ->
Fonts -> DPI.

The main pain point that I've had is that Google Chrome doesn't
support HiDPI very well.  I've manually adjusted the zoom level which
mostly compensates almost everything except the buttons on the
toolbar, but that's a problem which is independent of the desktop
environment, and won't be fixed until Aura support for Linux
arrives[1].

[1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143619

So that's my experience with Xfce and HiDPI displays; at least for
this hacker, it was orders of magnitude less painful than dealing with
GNOME.  :-)

Cheers,

- Ted

P.S.  I don't have the double suspend problem; it looks like these
days, xfce4-power-manager doesn't do any suspending at all, and it's
all handled by systemd.  So the main pain point there was not waiting
suspend on lid close when I was on AC power.  I found the following
which worked around the issue for me (except that I haven't been able
to make the udev rules work, but I don't mind running
/usr/local/bin/suspend-prevent by hand when I go on and off AC mains.)

http://nrocco.github.io/2014/06/05/suspend-prevent-systemd.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140812191102.ga7...@thunk.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Simon McVittie]

On 08/08/14 05:41, Joey Hess wrote:
> (Also, perhaps worth noting
> that 3.12 is quite a few versions ahead of the gnome currently in
> unstable..)

The metapackages in src:meta-gnome3 are still at version 3.8, but the
actual upstream packages making up GNOME 3.12 are nearly all in testing
already. Automated tracker:
https://www.0d.be/debian/debian-gnome-3.12-status.html

According to that page, brasero (CD burning) and several casual games
(Sudoku etc.) are out of date. That's about it. It's entirely possible
that those packages didn't have any significant changes between what we
have and the GNOME 3.12 release, or have changes that are unsuitable.

There's a lot of red in the Telepathy section, but that's only because
the automated tracker is picking up "0.99.x" snapshots from the
Telepathy 1.0 branch, which isn't ready for real use yet, and will
probably land alongside GNOME 3.16 post-jessie. Our versions of
Telepathy 0.x are up to date.

I don't know whether the GNOME maintainers intend to update
src:meta-gnome3 for 3.12, or whether the metapackages' dependencies from
3.8 are equally valid for 3.12.

S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ea44ef.1010...@debian.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Joey Hess]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Do you intend to review (or are you reviewing) the decision taken in
> July 2012 [1] ?  If so, is this discussion here on -devel useful ?  If
> it is useful, what questions should we be focusing on ?

See my 1st message to this thread.

Can't say I've found most of the thread useful.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Ian Jackson]

Jordi Mallach writes ("Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop"):
> It's been around 9 months since tasksel changed (for real) the default
> desktop for new installs. At the time of the change, it was mentioned
> the issue would be revisited before the freeze, around debconf time.

Fascinating as this discussion is, I think it is at risk of becoming
too much of a time sink.  I think that it would be useful to have some
authoritative guidance from those in Debian who are responsible for
this decision.  AFAICT that is the tasksel maintainers.

So I would appreciate it if the tasksel maintainers would let us know:

Do you intend to review (or are you reviewing) the decision taken in
July 2012 [1] ?  If so, is this discussion here on -devel useful ?  If
it is useful, what questions should we be focusing on ?

Ian.

[1] 
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tasksel/tasksel.git;a=commit;h=2a962cc65cdba010177f27e8824ba10d9a799a08


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21482.8088.55315.575...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Johannes Schaffrath]

On 08/11/2014 09:45 PM, Johannes Schaffrath wrote:

On 08/11/2014 07:38 PM, David Weinehall wrote:

Summary:

* If you download you can pick the smallest option possible;
   thus the default desktop is irrelevant -- people with plenty
   of bandwidth will probably go with the default, but if you know
   that your connectivity is expensive you'll go for something small
   (possibly forgoing the tasks system altogether)

* If you use ready-made CD/DVD images they'll be fixed size no matter
   what.  If you sneaker-net them you definitely want them to be full,
   not half-full.


Regards: David
I fully agree. It doesn't matter how do you have to pay for CD's or 
DVD's for the default DE. The user will choose the iso which they 
need. If we are really worried about the iso and people with a bad 
connection then we should split the LXDE and Xfce iso.

I stick to it:
* Debian doesn't need a default desktop,
* CD1 should be renamed similar to KDE, Xfce/LXDE CD isos and maybe a 
Mate iso would be great and
* the option to choose a DE should be hidden in the advanced options 
for netisos.


Best Johannes (debian user)

Not should... I mean shouldn't be hidden:)






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e91f13.5010...@mail.de

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 07:41:00PM +0100, Mirosław Baran wrote:
> Olav, would you mind to clarify in what capacity are you on this list?
> (Debian user? Debian maintainer? Debian developer? GNOME upstream
> developer?
> Systemd developer? Interested independent party? Something else
> altogether?)
> 
> (I hope you wont't think this question to be rude – I like to have a
> bit of clarity.)

Ah, sorry. I mentioned it a few times during systemd discussion, so
didn't repeat to avoid it being seen as noise.

Anyway: GNOME release team member. (realized last GUADEC that I'm
already in that team for almost 6 years)

I lurk/contribute on Gentoo, openSUSE, Fedora, Debian, Mageia (read
on). I've reached out to a few Debian Developers last FOSDEM. Initially
just to better understand the issues distributions face while packaging
GNOME I started to help out @ Mageia with GNOME packaging.

Regarding Debian specifically: Used it for a year or so, and for a much
longer time on a few servers (IMO server doesn't mean much, once
configured you don't spend loads of hours logged into it like you do
when you're using it on your desktop machine).

Also an more-or-less inactive GNOME sysadmin, inactive triager
(Mozilla+GNOME), used to be Bugzilla developer (later learned that this
also enabled commit privs to Mozilla:). I like to help out with the
development of GNOME, without actually being a developer (aside from
scripting languages like Python/Perl). I did release a tarball once or
twice though :P

GNOME is purely a hobby, I have no other interest. I like discussions
(probably noticeable). I like seeing "where GNOME stands". E.g. what
things are we doing wrong. I also like feedback. Meaning, I prefer if
people take part in discussions. I often forward potential things I
think might be missed or might be a problem to distributor-list. E.g.
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/distributor-list/2012-June/msg1.html
where we didn't get much feedback on the plan to switch to Python 3. But
also stuff like non-maintenance of (freedesktop.org) ConsoleKit, changes
to (freedesktop.org) UPower, etc.

Originally I joined release team due to being a triager. I was asked to
join because of knowing the issues within GNOME (bugs, etc). I don't do
the actual GNOME releases as that is almost impossible to do without
taking time off. The packaging hugely helps though, sometimes ask for
new tarballs (x.y.z.1 and so on).

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140811193845.gc22...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Johannes Schaffrath]

On 08/11/2014 07:38 PM, David Weinehall wrote:

Summary:

* If you download you can pick the smallest option possible;
   thus the default desktop is irrelevant -- people with plenty
   of bandwidth will probably go with the default, but if you know
   that your connectivity is expensive you'll go for something small
   (possibly forgoing the tasks system altogether)

* If you use ready-made CD/DVD images they'll be fixed size no matter
   what.  If you sneaker-net them you definitely want them to be full,
   not half-full.


Regards: David
I fully agree. It doesn't matter how do you have to pay for CD's or 
DVD's for the default DE. The user will choose the iso which they need. 
If we are really worried about the iso and people with a bad connection 
then we should split the LXDE and Xfce iso.

I stick to it:
* Debian doesn't need a default desktop,
* CD1 should be renamed similar to KDE, Xfce/LXDE CD isos and maybe a 
Mate iso would be great and
* the option to choose a DE should be hidden in the advanced options for 
netisos.


Best Johannes (debian user)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e91d5f.8080...@mail.de

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:12:02PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Olav Vitters (2014-08-11 11:21:14)
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> Quite a few places in the World have poor and/or expensive internet 
> >> access.  Larger default desktop will hurt the most in developing 
> >> countries: non-techies gets discourages to use Debian at all, or when 
> >> using it may apply security fixes less often.
> >
> > How poor is poor?
> 
> Poor enough that they bother visitors coming from different places in 
> the World asking them to please consider bring install data "by 
> sneakernet" (e.g. on CDs but could just as well be floppies or uSD 
> storage embedded in iPhones - physical media type not important).
> 
> I call it "bother" not because I have experienced actually being 
> bothered by such request, but because I have experienced being treated 
> like a king in India and Indonesia yet asked that - surprising to me - 
> requst.

With "how poor is poor" to please give numbers. Something to work with.

Regarding bringing install media: Been there, done that. Including the
bits of passing it along various people because cd's got "lost" in the
post. I urge you to be concrete. Numbers.

> > I've been participating since having a theoretical 64KB/s cable 
> > connection, which in practice only did 3-5KB/s (provider: BART in 
> > Rotterdam)! A cd would take about 24 hours to download (net install 
> > was sometimes unreliable, so I preferred a cd). Having a poor 
> > connection means you get creative. I shared the cd's I downloaded, 
> > used rewritable to push the cost down, etc.
> 
> How poor was that example of poor?

I gave exact numbers, please don't give vague replies. It's not helpful.

> > I've checked http://explorer.netindex.com/maps which shows the Speed 
> > test results across the world. According to that site, the minimal 
> > speed I can see in various African countries is at least 0.75 Mbps. 
> > Much higher than the speed I was used to.
> 
> How expensive is such average speed?  Not measured in dollar, but 
> measured in something more locally tangible, like "work hours"?

How about doing that research yourself. You're saying to take into
account third world countries, yet not giving any numbers. I gave you
the average speed of a lot of countries. It seems to not match with your
expectations. Cool, then it is NOT up to me to figure out why your still
might be right.

> > Always having a slow connection changes means you're tolerance level 
> > is different. I used to download a cd in 24 hours. Nowadays the same 
> > takes maybe 35 seconds.
> 
> Still you are talking about cost in time.  Few I have met in developing 
> countries were poor measured in time available.

No, I am not just talking about cost in time. I gave concrete measures.
You've entire reply lacks anything concrete. Nothing to work with *AT
ALL*. Quantify!

I've said before I have experience with working around low bandwidth,
but it seems nothing is acceptable. That's ok, because then this usecase
cannot be fulfilled anyway.

> > I don't get the doom and gloom unless you're more clear.
> 
> Please elaborate what is unclear.

Please explain:
- Why this problem did not exist when GNOME used to be a default
- In case it was a problem before, why GNOME was still used
- In case it was acceptable, why isn't it acceptable now
- Why is XFCE acceptable
- Why is the only acceptable solution changing the default DE for
  everyone
- What install size is acceptable
- What install size was it with GNOME before
- What bandwidth is acceptable
- Why cant this be solved by e.g. mailing cd's?
- If Debian 6.0 200MB netinst cd uses GNOME
- If Debian 7.6 290MB netinst cd uses XFCE


Your arguments come up as arbitrary, especially when considering GNOME
used to be a default. Coupled with vague non-specific replies comes off
as pretty disrespectful.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140811185503.gb22...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Mirosław Baran]

Olav Vitters wrote:

My response specifically deals with this. Yes, nice if Debian 
Developers

could keep the response. However, there is nothing in there about "must
not be dropped without good reason". If upstream removes support, so be
it. Then it is very nice if the support is patched back in, but there 
is

nothing in the decision that it is expected that anyone could expect
packagers to do this.


Olav, would you mind to clarify in what capacity are you on this list?
(Debian user? Debian maintainer? Debian developer? GNOME upstream 
developer?
Systemd developer? Interested independent party? Something else 
altogether?)


(I hope you wont't think this question to be rude – I like to have a bit 
of clarity.)


Thanks in advance,
Best regards
– Miroslaw Baran


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3c817a9379195d1e8db6a44a3112c...@hell.pl

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Lu, 11 aug 14, 19:38:47, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:00:05PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I do: I see a reason to netinst a 0.629xCD size desktop install rather 
> > than a 0.829xCD size desktop when bandwidth is costly.
> 
> Yes, but if you netinst you can *pick* your desktop, it's not like you
> have to pick the default.  Do a minimal install, then use tasksel
> to select XFCE (or just x + a window manager + the application you
> actually need).

Even the netinst has a default. Besides your method below it's also 
possible to change it using the boot menu, which many will miss or be 
afraid to try (it's under "Advanced options"), so will end up with 
whatever Debian chooses as default.

So the default matters also for the netinst, unless it's made easier to 
change from the installation process itself.

Probably easiest would be to just get rid of "Mail server", "Web 
server", "Print server" (CUPS will get pulled anyway as dependency of 
most if not all major DEs), etc. and instead display a list of Desktop 
Environments to choose from.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[David Weinehall]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:00:05PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I do: I see a reason to netinst a 0.629xCD size desktop install rather 
> than a 0.829xCD size desktop when bandwidth is costly.

Yes, but if you netinst you can *pick* your desktop, it's not like you
have to pick the default.  Do a minimal install, then use tasksel
to select XFCE (or just x + a window manager + the application you
actually need).

The CD images are fixed size.  They will fill out a CD-size
(or a DVD, if they are DVD-images).  Netinst images can obviously
be optimized for size, but the netinst images do not contain the
desktop environment, so whichever desktop is default is a totally
moot question in that scenario.

Summary:

* If you download you can pick the smallest option possible;
  thus the default desktop is irrelevant -- people with plenty
  of bandwidth will probably go with the default, but if you know
  that your connectivity is expensive you'll go for something small
  (possibly forgoing the tasks system altogether)

* If you use ready-made CD/DVD images they'll be fixed size no matter
  what.  If you sneaker-net them you definitely want them to be full,
  not half-full.


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall  /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140811173843.gd2...@hirohito.acc.umu.se

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Joel Rees]

2014/08/12 1:12 "Jonas Smedegaard" :
>
> [...]
> Still you are talking about cost in time.  Few I have met in developing
> countries were poor measured in time available.
> [...]

Developed country (Japan). My wife makes me scrimp on everything, so I
still have megabit/sec download. Fiber or 10 Mb/s copper would cost me some
JPY1000 a month more, up to about 3500/mo. (Roughly JPY100 to USD1.00.)
So, when I download DVDs, I plan on leaving the download going all day.

But I don't download DVDs because the installer will go to the net for the
latest anyway, if you let it. Of course, that means upgrading to Jessy is
going to be two days of down time.

--
Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Olav Vitters (2014-08-11 11:21:14)
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quite a few places in the World have poor and/or expensive internet 
>> access.  Larger default desktop will hurt the most in developing 
>> countries: non-techies gets discourages to use Debian at all, or when 
>> using it may apply security fixes less often.
>
> How poor is poor?

Poor enough that they bother visitors coming from different places in 
the World asking them to please consider bring install data "by 
sneakernet" (e.g. on CDs but could just as well be floppies or uSD 
storage embedded in iPhones - physical media type not important).

I call it "bother" not because I have experienced actually being 
bothered by such request, but because I have experienced being treated 
like a king in India and Indonesia yet asked that - surprising to me - 
requst.


> I've been participating since having a theoretical 64KB/s cable 
> connection, which in practice only did 3-5KB/s (provider: BART in 
> Rotterdam)! A cd would take about 24 hours to download (net install 
> was sometimes unreliable, so I preferred a cd). Having a poor 
> connection means you get creative. I shared the cd's I downloaded, 
> used rewritable to push the cost down, etc.

How poor was that example of poor?


> I've checked http://explorer.netindex.com/maps which shows the Speed 
> test results across the world. According to that site, the minimal 
> speed I can see in various African countries is at least 0.75 Mbps. 
> Much higher than the speed I was used to.

How expensive is such average speed?  Not measured in dollar, but 
measured in something more locally tangible, like "work hours"?


> Always having a slow connection changes means you're tolerance level 
> is different. I used to download a cd in 24 hours. Nowadays the same 
> takes maybe 35 seconds.

Still you are talking about cost in time.  Few I have met in developing 
countries were poor measured in time available.


> I don't get the doom and gloom unless you're more clear.

Please elaborate what is unclear.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting David Weinehall (2014-08-10 22:59:45)
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> The issue here really is "how big is it?" rather than "hos many disks 
>> [of which kind] does it fit onto?".
>>
>> "unable to fit on a single image" is not only about use of said 
>> storage devices for installation, but also an indication more 
>> generally of how much data needs to be transfered on average for a 
>> usable installation.
>>
>> Quite a few places in the World have poor and/or expensive internet 
>> access.  Larger default desktop will hurt the most in developing 
>> countries: non-techies gets discourages to use Debian at all, or when 
>> using it may apply security fixes less often.
>
> In all cases where I'm stuck with expensive (and/or slow) Internet I 
> sure as hell pick the netinst image and download the minimum set of 
> packages I need, rather than a whole CD image on the offhand chance 
> that I might need everything on it (which is exceedingly unlikely).

[remark about actual CD use rather than desktop size measure snipped]

> So, as long as GNOME fits on the first installation CD I see no reason 
> not to prefer it over XFCE.

I do: I see a reason to netinst a 0.629xCD size desktop install rather 
than a 0.829xCD size desktop when bandwidth is costly.

(numbers above are made up - just to illustrate that I am talking about 
the size of the desktops, not actual concrete CDs or DVDs or Blueray 
disks.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:30:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Olav Vitters (o...@vitters.nl) [140808 19:12]:
> > [ support for init systems bedside systemd ]
> 
> > There was also a question what should happen if *upstream* removes
> > support. That's not up to Debian Developers to patch back. Such was
> > discussed and clarified. One of the questions that was voted on this was
> > pretty much about this.
> 
> My memory of what we discussed and voted is different.
> 
> Basically we recommend to support as many init systems as reasonable
> possible, and that is even true if upstream ceases support for it. It
> might have some impact on what "reasonable" is after upstream ceases
> support for some init system (and of course, as always it is prefered
> to do such patches on upstream side), but it is definitly not
> forbidden to patch support for some init system back into a package
> (unless the package becomes by this "too broken to be supported", or
> one of the many others things we prefer to not have in our archive -
> as always). (And nothing here is actually init system specific, or
> new etc.)

>From the email I responded to:
| Yes, the decision was taken by ctte.  #746715 decided that all init |
| systems are to be supported, not only systemd, and that functionality
| on non-systemd must not be dropped without a good reason.

My response specifically deals with this. Yes, nice if Debian Developers
could keep the response. However, there is nothing in there about "must
not be dropped without good reason". If upstream removes support, so be
it. Then it is very nice if the support is patched back in, but there is
nothing in the decision that it is expected that anyone could expect
packagers to do this.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140811090044.ga14...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[fr33domlover]

On 2014-08-07
Jordi Mallach  wrote:

> Hi Debian,
> 
> It's been around 9 months since tasksel changed (for real) the default
> desktop for new installs. At the time of the change, it was mentioned
> the issue would be revisited before the freeze, around debconf time.
> 
> Well, it's roughly that time. :) So I'd like to plainly request GNOME is
> reinstated as the default desktop environment for a number of reasons.
> 

Jordi, very good points.


I'm not a Debian developer, just a user, but here's my opinion. Probably not
something which hasn't been said, but I'd like to support this view too.

All the good things GNOME has make it an excellent choice for a DE in Debian.
And indeed, you can install GNOME easily on Debian, and I don't think it will
change. Good. But a default DE is something differet.

A default DE should be reasonably stable, non-surprising, familiar, and work
with few-years-old hardware at least (my 4-5 year old laptop already struggles
with GNOME, taking more than half the RAM even before I run the heavy things).
If people like GNOME 3 - and many do - they can just choose to download the
ISO with GNOME. Just like they did for KDE and XFCE. But when you don't know
much or just need a working desktop, XFCE is a light configurable quick
solution.

Therefore, while GNOME is great and has all its strengths and community - I
think XFCE should be default. I believe you'll simply see many people install
the non-default GNOME, so GNOME will retain all the community, popularity and
attention it has. And XFCE may get some new attention which will help with its
further development.



I believe many people new to GNU/Linux and friends don't
exactly understand what distros and DEs are. They want the "Debian CD", push it
into the CD drive and wait for the magic to happen. For these people, it would
be nice if Debian worked well out-of-the-box as a universal operating system.
Later they can easily discover GNOME, KDE, etc.

One could say that XFCE as a default is bad as first impression, but in fact,
to people coming from Window$ it's much more familiar and they don't expect
anything fancy if they never saw it already.

Overall, I think XFCE's traditional stable lightweight configurable approach is
better as a default. You can always make the GNOME and KDE CDs clearly visible
on the download page, to make sure people are aware of them if they have shiny
hardware or preference for GNOME Shell and so on.



Also, idea: A page on the Debian wiki/policy can be made, which explains how a
default DE should be chosen. Which characteristics are more important, which
are less and so on. I feel the variety of different opinions here is not only
the natural result of a healthy discussion, but also a result of each person
having their own view of what "default DE" should mean. Some guidelines or
rules etc. could make it easier to make these decisions, and keep them
consistent.


-- fr33
PGP key ID: 937A67EF


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Joel Rees]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Joel Rees  wrote:

(Having booted up a real OS, but still using Google's webmail fake MUA. heh.)

> [...]
> 2014/08/11 7:32 "Joel Rees" :
>> 2014/08/08 6:58 "Jordi Mallach" :
>>
>> [...]
>> > systemd embracing: One of the reasons to switch to Xfce was that it
>> > didn’t
>> > depend on systemd. But now that systemd is the default, that shouldn’t
>> > be a
>> > problem. Also given ConsoleKit is deprecated and dead upstream, KDE and
>> > Xfce
>> > are switching or are planning to switch to systemd/logind.
>
> Isn't this essentially the sum of your thesis

That is, isn't this your thesis, in sum?

>> > In addition to this, moving to Xfce now would mean yet another
>> > transition to
>> > a new desktop (if we consider GNOME 2.x → 3.x a transition, which it
>> > is),
>> > which would mean a new round of adapation for users installing Debian
>> > from
>> > scratch, and only after two years after getting used to the GNOME 3
>> > workflow.
>> > jessie's GNOME 3.x release should be a lot more polished than what we
>> > shipped
>> > with wheezy, which means many of the rough edges and annoyances people
>> > may
>> > have found when upgrading from squeeze are probably now ironed out.

So, we should move, yet again, before any CDs get burned, lest anyone
doubt debian's allegiance to the one-true-and-coming-OS?

(I should have held my tongue on that, I suppose, since these are the
dev lists, and I am making some serious requests below.)

>> > Many members of the Debian GNOME team feel shipping Xfce by default
>> > would
>> > mean regressing in a few key areas like, as mentioned before,
>> > accessibility,
>> > localisation and documentation of the default set of applications. We
>> > are wary
>> > about the state of some features of the current default with respect
>> > to power management and bluetooth, for example. These features are
>> > driven by,
>> > and working since day 1, by GNOME 3.12.
>> >
>> > Jordi
>> > --
>> > Jordi Mallach Pérez  --  Debian developer http://www.debian.org/
>> > jo...@sindominio.net jo...@debian.org http://www.sindominio.net/
>> > GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/

Two years from now, your list of reasons might make sense.

Right now, there has been no time to gather the sort of statistics
needed to support your assertions.

But, and I mean this seriously, since debian has made the move to
systemd, it seems to me that your assertions are superfluous. It makes
no sense not to make Gnome3 the default DE.

That means, I think, that it also makes no sense to have a CD install
image other than netinstall.

It would be nice if the install media made DE options a little more
accessible than is currently the case.

I'm not sure if my memories here are from debian, but it seems to me
that it used to be fairly easy to select, say, a desktop productivity
set of initial packages and then go in and change the DE from Gnome2
to XFCE.

Last time I tried the easy install, I didn't see any way to do that,
and I ended up having to remove Gnome3 and install XFCE after the
first boot.

-- 
Joel Rees

Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caar43iofaofevnotsmnrbatqmwnvgm5p7ah_rqj1n4gvcdg...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Joel Rees]

(Sure wish I could get drivers for this Acer tablet so I could get replace
the vendor-constricted Android with a real OS and get software that
wouldn't misinterpret what my fingers do on the screen. But, then, I
suppose I should go to the trouble of booting up a regular computer for
this.)

2014/08/11 7:32 "Joel Rees" :
>
> 2014/08/08 6:58 "Jordi Mallach" :
>
> >
> > Hi Debian,
> >
> > It's been around 9 months since tasksel changed (for real) the default
> > desktop for new installs. At the time of the change, it was mentioned
> > the issue would be revisited before the freeze, around debconf time.
> >
> > Well, it's roughly that time. :) So I'd like to plainly request GNOME is
> > reinstated as the default desktop environment for a number of reasons.
>
> First thought: Since systemd has been chosen as the one true way of the
future, it seems only obvious that GNOME should be the default desktop.
>
> > Accessibility: GNOME continues to be the only free desktop environment
that
> > provides full accessibility coverage, right from login screen. While
it’s true
> > GNOME 3.0 was lacking in many areas, and GNOME 3.4 (which we shipped in
wheezy)
> > was just barely acceptable thanks to some last minute GDM fixes, GNOME
3.12
> > should have ironed out all of the issues and our non-expert
understanding is
> > that a11y support is now on par with what GNOME 2.30 from squeeze
offered.
>
> There are a number of regular participants on debian-user who have a11y
needs. Would it be too much to ask, to ask them whether GNOME meets their
needs?
>
> > Downstream health: The number of active members in the team taking care
of
> > GNOME in Debian is around 5-10 persons, while it is 1-2 in the case of
Xfce.
> > Being the default desktop draws a lot of attention (and bug reports)
that only
> > a bigger team might have the resources to handle.
>
> It has been mentioned in the past, but developers work on what they want
to work on. That may or may not be related to whether a particular DE is
appropriate for general rcommendation.
>
> > Upstream health: While GNOME is still committed to its time-based
release
> > schedule and ships new versions every 6 months, Xfce upstream is,
> > unfortunately, struggling a bit more to keep up with new plumbing
technology.
> > Only very recently it has regained support to suspend/hibernate via
logind, or
> > support for Bluez 5.x, for example.
>
> Should consider the reasons for the breakage, as well.
>
> > Community: GNOME is one of the biggest free software projects, and is
lucky to
> > have created an ecosystem of developers, documenters, translators and
users
> > that interact regularly in a live social community. Users and
developers gather
> > in hackfests and big, annual conferences like GUADEC, the Boston
Summit, or
> > GNOME.Asia. Only KDE has a comparable community, the rest of the free
desktop
> > projects don’t have the userbase or manpower to sustain communities
like this.
>
> With a community that big, would it be unreasonable to ask them to
maintain their own distro? Or perhaps their own liveCD? Eh, well, liveSD.
>
> > Localization: Localization is more extensive and complete in GNOME.
 Xfce has
> > 18 languages above 95% of coverage, and 2 at 100% (excluding English),
GNOME
> > has 28 languages above 95%, 9 of them being complete (excluding
English).
>
> LOL.
>
> No, seriously, is there any meaning to the claim of "complete"?
>
> I've seen a lot of bad Japanese translation, recently, that, if I had
more time, I'd file bugs on.
>
> > Documentation: Documentation coverage is extensive in GNOME, with most
of the
> > core applications providing localized, up to date and complete manuals,
> > available in an accessible format via the Help reader.
>
> See above. Documentation and translation have something in common here.
Particularly since documentation should be translation from technical
language to the more common vernacular.
>
> > Hardware: GNOME 3.12 will be one of the few desktop environments to
support
> > HiDPI displays, now very common on some laptop models. Lack of support
for
> > HiDPI means non-technical users will get an unreadable desktop by
default, and
> > no hints on how to fix that.

I'm thinking this sounds like an argument for postponing freeze.

> > Security: GNOME is more secure. There are no processes launched with
root
> > permissions on the user’s session. All everyday operations (package
management,
> > disk partitioning and formatting, date/time configuration…) are
accomplished
> > through PolicyKit wrappers.

With the volume of new code, can such claims be serious?

> > Privacy: One of the latest focuses of GNOME development is improving
privacy,
> > and work is being done to make it easy to run GNOME applications in
isolated
> > containers, integrate Tor seamlessly in the desktop experience, better
disk
> > encryption support and other features that should make GNOME a more
secure
> > desktop environment for end users.

TOR has what to do with real priv

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Russ Allbery]

Joel Rees  writes:

> First thought: Since systemd has been chosen as the one true way of the
> future, it seems only obvious that GNOME should be the default desktop.

That doesn't seem at all obvious to me.  I don't think those two things
are particularly related.  Lots of people use systemd without being fans
of, or particularly interested in, GNOME, myself included.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wqagj7bq@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Joel Rees]

2014/08/08 6:58 "Jordi Mallach" :
>
> Hi Debian,
>
> It's been around 9 months since tasksel changed (for real) the default
> desktop for new installs. At the time of the change, it was mentioned
> the issue would be revisited before the freeze, around debconf time.
>
> Well, it's roughly that time. :) So I'd like to plainly request GNOME is
> reinstated as the default desktop environment for a number of reasons.

First thought: Since systemd has been chosen as the one true way of the
future, it seems only obvious that GNOME should be the default desktop.

> Accessibility: GNOME continues to be the only free desktop environment
that
> provides full accessibility coverage, right from login screen. While it’s
true
> GNOME 3.0 was lacking in many areas, and GNOME 3.4 (which we shipped in
wheezy)
> was just barely acceptable thanks to some last minute GDM fixes, GNOME
3.12
> should have ironed out all of the issues and our non-expert understanding
is
> that a11y support is now on par with what GNOME 2.30 from squeeze offered.

There are a number of regular participants on debian-user who have a11y
needs. Would it be too much to ask, to ask them whether GNOME meets their
needs?

> Downstream health: The number of active members in the team taking care of
> GNOME in Debian is around 5-10 persons, while it is 1-2 in the case of
Xfce.
> Being the default desktop draws a lot of attention (and bug reports) that
only
> a bigger team might have the resources to handle.

It has been mentioned in the past, but developers work on what they want to
work on. That may or may not be related to whether a particular DE is
appropriate for general rcommendation.

> Upstream health: While GNOME is still committed to its time-based release
> schedule and ships new versions every 6 months, Xfce upstream is,
> unfortunately, struggling a bit more to keep up with new plumbing
technology.
> Only very recently it has regained support to suspend/hibernate via
logind, or
> support for Bluez 5.x, for example.

Should consider the reasons for the breakage, as well.

> Community: GNOME is one of the biggest free software projects, and is
lucky to
> have created an ecosystem of developers, documenters, translators and
users
> that interact regularly in a live social community. Users and developers
gather
> in hackfests and big, annual conferences like GUADEC, the Boston Summit,
or
> GNOME.Asia. Only KDE has a comparable community, the rest of the free
desktop
> projects don’t have the userbase or manpower to sustain communities like
this.

With a community that big, would it be unreasonable to ask them to maintain
their own distro? Or perhaps their own liveCD? Eh, well, liveSD.

> Localization: Localization is more extensive and complete in GNOME.  Xfce
has
> 18 languages above 95% of coverage, and 2 at 100% (excluding English),
GNOME
> has 28 languages above 95%, 9 of them being complete (excluding English).

LOL.

No, seriously, is there any meaning to the claim of "complete"?

I've seen a lot of bad Japanese translation, recently, that, if I had more
time, I'd file bugs on.

> Documentation: Documentation coverage is extensive in GNOME, with most of
the
> core applications providing localized, up to date and complete manuals,
> available in an accessible format via the Help reader.

See above. Documentation and translation have something in common here.
Particularly since documentation should be translation from technical
language to the more common vernacular.

> Hardware: GNOME 3.12 will be one of the few desktop environments to
support
> HiDPI displays, now very common on some laptop models. Lack of support for
> HiDPI means non-technical users will get an unreadable desktop by
default, and
> no hints on how to fix that.
>
> Security: GNOME is more secure. There are no processes launched with root
> permissions on the user’s session. All everyday operations (package
management,
> disk partitioning and formatting, date/time configuration…) are
accomplished
> through PolicyKit wrappers.
>
> Privacy: One of the latest focuses of GNOME development is improving
privacy,
> and work is being done to make it easy to run GNOME applications in
isolated
> containers, integrate Tor seamlessly in the desktop experience, better
disk
> encryption support and other features that should make GNOME a more secure
> desktop environment for end users.
>
> Popularity: One of the metrics discussed by the tasksel change proponents
> mentioned popcon numbers. 8 months after the desktop change, Xfce does
not seem
> to have made a dent on install numbers.  The Debian GNOME team doesn’t
feel
> popcon’s data is any better than a random online poll though, as it’s an
opt-in
> service which the vast majority of users don’t enable.
>
> systemd embracing: One of the reasons to switch to Xfce was that it didn’t
> depend on systemd. But now that systemd is the default, that shouldn’t be
a
> problem. Also given ConsoleKit is deprecated and dead upstream, KDE and
Xfce
> a

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[David Weinehall]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 
> The issue here really is "how big is it?" rather than "hos many disks 
> [of which kind] does it fit onto?".
> 
> "unable to fit on a single image" is not only about use of said storage 
> devices for installation, but also an indication more generally of how 
> much data needs to be transfered on average for a usable installation.
> 
> Quite a few places in the World have poor and/or expensive internet 
> access.  Larger default desktop will hurt the most in developing 
> countries: non-techies gets discourages to use Debian at all, or when 
> using it may apply security fixes less often.

In all cases where I'm stuck with expensive (and/or slow) Internet
I sure as hell pick the netinst image and download the minimum set of
packages I need, rather than a whole CD image on the offhand chance that
I might need everything on it (which is exceedingly unlikely).

If, on the other hand, I download a CD-image somewhere else to burn it
and then bring it home, the image will always be full CD-size (or are
you suggesting that we start distributing half-empty CD-images?).

So, as long as GNOME fits on the first installation CD I see no reason
not to prefer it over XFCE.


Kind regards, David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall  /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140810205944.gc2...@hirohito.acc.umu.se

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  9 août 2014 15:13 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard  :

>>> Did you perhaps suppress recommends?
>>>
>>> I have experienced this same issue when (for Debian-Parl deployment 
>>> at the European Parliament) I tried trim the system by avoiding gvfs.
>>>
>>> In my experience USB sticks auto-mount properly when gvfs is 
>>> installed.  Please try again - and don't suppress recommendations - 
>>> and file a bugreport if your issue persists, thank you.
>>
>> A lighter alternative to gvfs is udisks-glue.
>
> Interesting!
>
> ...or so I thought - filed bug#757565, but after closer examination 
> closed that report again: maintainer+upstream of udisks-glue apparently 
> recommends to let that project die: See bug#750511.

Oh, that's unfortunate. But those alternatives to Gnome components are
difficult to maintain...
-- 
Make it right before you make it faster.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Vincent Bernat (2014-08-09 13:43:42)
> ❦  9 août 2014 13:30 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard  :
>
>>> XFCE (does not mount my USB disks)
>>
>> Did you perhaps suppress recommends?
>>
>> I have experienced this same issue when (for Debian-Parl deployment 
>> at the European Parliament) I tried trim the system by avoiding gvfs.
>>
>> In my experience USB sticks auto-mount properly when gvfs is 
>> installed.  Please try again - and don't suppress recommendations - 
>> and file a bugreport if your issue persists, thank you.
>
> A lighter alternative to gvfs is udisks-glue.

Interesting!

...or so I thought - filed bug#757565, but after closer examination 
closed that report again: maintainer+upstream of udisks-glue apparently 
recommends to let that project die: See bug#750511.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  9 août 2014 13:30 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard  :

>> XFCE (does not mount my USB disks)
>
> Did you perhaps suppress recommends?
>
> I have experienced this same issue when (for Debian-Parl deployment at 
> the European Parliament) I tried trim the system by avoiding gvfs.
>
> In my experience USB sticks auto-mount properly when gvfs is installed.  
> Please try again - and don't suppress recommendations - and file a 
> bugreport if your issue persists, thank you.

A lighter alternative to gvfs is udisks-glue.
-- 
printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: defective CD-ROM (volume sequence
number). Enabling \"cruft\" mount option.\n");
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/fs/isofs/inode.c


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi envite,

Thanks for your input.

Quoting envite (2014-08-09 10:43:25)
> XFCE (does not mount my USB disks)

Did you perhaps suppress recommends?

I have experienced this same issue when (for Debian-Parl deployment at 
the European Parliament) I tried trim the system by avoiding gvfs.

In my experience USB sticks auto-mount properly when gvfs is installed.  
Please try again - and don't suppress recommendations - and file a 
bugreport if your issue persists, thank you.


 - Jonas

P.S.

Please consider another time to refrain from muddling your otherwise 
useful input with unusable cursing.

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Axel Wagner]

Hi,

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  writes:
> It is, as it's the amazing job which Jordi did on bringing good
> arguments in favor of GNOME as a default DE (even I'm not really
> supporting it).

His personal opinion about whether or not GNOME or XFCE are technically
the best choices -- surely. If it is based upon a solid evaluation of
both, even more so.

His personal opinion about whether or not people *like* one or the
other, based upon the existence or non-existence of flamewars -- surely
not. At least I sincerely hope, no one takes that the least bit
serious.

> Anyway, I may not be contributing to the original issue this thread, but
> I have to ask you here to avoi being so rude with our users.

I apoligize to the part of my second mail where I might have been
rude. I do not apologize for asking to justify statements that where
made as arguments in a discussion. Claiming, that gnome is not "neutral"
and providing as only justification "They made the following decisions I
disagree with" is at best a poor choice of words. Claiming that it is
common (or "not that uncommon") for people to dislike GNOME 3 and
providing as only justification "just google 'GNOME 3 sucks'" may be
okay in a bar, but not as an argument to be taken into consideration in
a serious discussion.

> And dear users, please keep sharing your personal experience with
> Debian, even if you are unable to quanti-qualify things in fancy numbers
> to please those who don't agree with you.

First, I did not ask for "fancy numbers". I asked for *anything*. A
ballpark guess, any kind of data that would enable to estimate the ratio
of people hating GNOME 3 to the people loving it (for example at least
some people have tried interpreting popcon-data for that). I made this
more than clear in my first message and I was pretty polite, I think (at
least I honestly tried and I am very sorry if I failed there). But as
expected, there is no justification whatsoever.
Second, I don't disagree with him. I actually have no opinion on gnome
vs. xfce, as previously stated, I simply don't care. I only have an
opinion on presenting unjustifiable claims as objective arguments in a 
discussion.

I really think, in these kinds of discussions it would be helpfull to
get some kind of direct community-feedback. This would help *both* sides
in every of these discussions, because it would make it impossible for
either side to claim a widely held opinion that can not be refuted
easily. For example, if we could have a simple survey "do you prefer
the experience of gnome 3 or xfce" which any dev/maintainer/user could
fill in, it would make it impossible for gnome-guys to claim it is more
modern or preferred by non-technical people (who might not be vocal on
-devel, but might very well fill in such a simple survely), if it really
isn't. But it would also make it impossible for xfce-supporters (or
gnome haters) to claim a wide opposition to the changes of gnome 2
vs. 3, if there is none. Both sides regularly invoke a majority-opinion
without providing justification, that just does not work in an argument.

Best,

Axel Wagner


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/87mwbdj547.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[envite]

Just my opinion, as requested below. Sorry for top-posting.

I have just installed a distro on my wife's new laptop. It was Mint due to 
Cinnamon. My parents had an old Ubuntu with KDE 3 (he) and Gnome 2 (she). Now 
they have a new Ubuntu with a "their kind of Gnome" and they do noy like it. I 
use Debian Sid with KDE 4 after having tried Gnome 3 (weird), XFCE (does not 
mount my USB disks) and the first KDE 4 releases (not fit for release). It 
starts being useable now, but it still uses so much resources.

My desktop works so and so, but is a dependencies nightmare so big that I have 
installed a virtual machine just for having a stable version of KMail in my 
desktop (I use ssh -x to the vm).

As a resume, nothing has ben the same since the developers massively become mad 
and decided to kill the working, stable, usable and configurable Desktop 
metaphore and run like Lemmings into the current set of shits.

Just a long time user opinion.

Enviado de Samsung Mobile

 Mensaje original 
De: Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  
Fecha:09/08/2014  4:57  (GMT+00:00) 
Para: debian-devel@lists.debian.org 
Asunto: Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop 

On 08/08/2014 09:07 AM, Axel Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> vita...@yourcmc.ru writes:
>> By "neutral" I've meant a DE without "dubious" solutions discussed in 
>> gnome3 flame wars all over the web. I don't really think we should also 
>> discuss it here, just because we don't really want to start another 
>> flame war :)
> 
> If you don't want to discuss your statement, you should have omitted
> it in the first place, because it obviously is no contribution to the 
> discussion.
> 
>> Of course I have no real numbers! What I've said is just my personal 
>> opinion, based on that I've seen a lot of flame wars about GNOME 3 on 
>> the web, and a non-zero count of forks/derivatives of GNOME 3 all aiming 
>> at providing a "more classic" environment (MATE, Cinnamon, Consort, 
>> Budgie).
> 
> Your personal opinion is certainly not an argument that needs to be
> taken into consideration for deciding on a default for debian,
> especially if it is formed on such dubious grounds.

It is, as it's the amazing job which Jordi did on bringing good
arguments in favor of GNOME as a default DE (even I'm not really
supporting it).

Anyway, I may not be contributing to the original issue this thread, but
I have to ask you here to avoi being so rude with our users.

And dear users, please keep sharing your personal experience with
Debian, even if you are unable to quanti-qualify things in fancy numbers
to please those who don't agree with you.

Regards,

-- 
tiago


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e59c2d.7090...@debian.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Tiago Bortoletto Vaz]

On 08/08/2014 09:07 AM, Axel Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> vita...@yourcmc.ru writes:
>> By "neutral" I've meant a DE without "dubious" solutions discussed in 
>> gnome3 flame wars all over the web. I don't really think we should also 
>> discuss it here, just because we don't really want to start another 
>> flame war :)
> 
> If you don't want to discuss your statement, you should have omitted
> it in the first place, because it obviously is no contribution to the 
> discussion.
> 
>> Of course I have no real numbers! What I've said is just my personal 
>> opinion, based on that I've seen a lot of flame wars about GNOME 3 on 
>> the web, and a non-zero count of forks/derivatives of GNOME 3 all aiming 
>> at providing a "more classic" environment (MATE, Cinnamon, Consort, 
>> Budgie).
> 
> Your personal opinion is certainly not an argument that needs to be
> taken into consideration for deciding on a default for debian,
> especially if it is formed on such dubious grounds.

It is, as it's the amazing job which Jordi did on bringing good
arguments in favor of GNOME as a default DE (even I'm not really
supporting it).

Anyway, I may not be contributing to the original issue this thread, but
I have to ask you here to avoi being so rude with our users.

And dear users, please keep sharing your personal experience with
Debian, even if you are unable to quanti-qualify things in fancy numbers
to please those who don't agree with you.

Regards,

-- 
tiago


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e59c2d.7090...@debian.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Marco d'Itri]

On Aug 08, Neil McGovern  wrote:

> Got bored. Made this: http://www.halon.org.uk/simplechooser/
Great work, thank you. I hope that it can be part of the solution.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Enrico Zini]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:29:26PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:

> Specifically: 1) Would you want the default CD/DVD image to use a GNOME
> even if GNOME was unable to fit on a single image? 2) Would the GNOME
> team consider a less-complete DE for cases where image size is a
> restriction?

How hard/sane would it be to have XFCE as default on installation CDs
and Gnome3 as default on installation DVDs or netinst CDs?

That way, people with disconnected, old computer get XFCE which has a
higher chance of working there. People with computers that either
have a DVD or a fast network connection, would instead default to the
heavier/more-feature-complete desktop.


Enrico "either way, I use lxde :P"

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Charles Plessy]

Le Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 06:50:40PM +0200, Lorenzo Bandieri a écrit :
> 
> In my own PCs most of the time I have Arch Linux installed, and I use
> Gnome 3 as my DE of choice since its first release. However, when I
> have to install a GNU/Linux distro in a system I do not directly
> control (i.e. my sister's pc, my mom's pc etc), or when I want a solid
> distro, I always install Debian for its great stability, and I usually
> choose Xfce as the DE. This is just to say that I have experience with
> both the DE and I like them both, but in different ways.



I installed Debian Wheezy with GNOME on the computer of three colleagues and I
had strictly zero complains on the user interface.  The most negative comment
was from a Mac user, that for cut-and-pasting text in the terminal, pressing
Ctrl-C or Ctrl-V does not give the expected result, but it is an unfair comment
since the same is true on Mac.  It is just that on Mac, cut-and-paste is done
with the ‘command’ key (⌘) instead of Control, and there is no such key on
GNOME.  Also, he quickly figured out by himself that Shift-Control-C/V do what
he wants.

Another colleague installed a Debian Wheezy virtual machine with GNOME by
herself, and spontaneoulsy told me how impressed she was by the user
interface of Debian.

The common point between these colleagues, is that they knew nothing about the
Gnome 2/3 controversy, and were more used to the Mac or Windows interfaces.



-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140809000232.gb22...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[brian m. carlson]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:34:29PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > Well, it's roughly that time. :) So I'd like to plainly request GNOME
> > > is reinstated as the default desktop environment for a number of
> > > reasons.
> > 
> > One of the reasons put forward for switching to Xfce was size on the
> > installation images; could you (and/or debian-cd) address this?
> > 
> > Specifically: 1) Would you want the default CD/DVD image to use a GNOME
> > even if GNOME was unable to fit on a single image? 2) Would the GNOME
> > team consider a less-complete DE for cases where image size is a
> > restriction?
> 
> ...And I'd like us to consider this point as well: How important are
> CD images nowadays? Who has a CD that cannot read a DVD? Will they be
> able to use on said machine a modern desktop environment as
> resource-demanding as, say, i3 or fvwm?

I used to do freelance desktop support (in the US) and there are a
decent number of machines that don't have DVD drives.  You would be
surprised how resistant people are to upgrade their machines.  (Also,
people give their old, less powerful machines to the small kids.)  Most
of these machines would work just fine with XFCE, but not GNOME.

DVD drives are also less common on non-PC hardware, especially the older
stuff that can be readily acquired for less than USD 1000.

Also, I always carried a bootable CD with me, because about a third of
machines just won't boot off a USB flash drive for any reason.  The BIOS
says they will, but it's a lie.  I've even owned one of these machines
(a fairly recent amd64 box).

I would recommend keeping CD images around.

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[MENGUAL Jean-Philippe]

Hi,

I don't know if it's wise to include that by default, but I remember 
that today, MATE is quite accessible. Not perfet, yes, but slight, 
customizable, and with Compiz which can run on it with all its features. 
Gnome is heavy for some machines and much less customizable in colours, 
objects size, etc. So I think the question should be considered. All the 
more as if it is, it will support its maintainance upstream and in 
Debian, to improve things. Here, it's much slighter than GNOME.


However, indeed, I'm not sure XFCE is the good solution, likely not for 
a11y anyway.


Regards,

Le 08/08/2014 17:23, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :

Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-08-08 16:19:28)

Jonas Smedegaard, le Fri 08 Aug 2014 16:11:58 +0200, a écrit :

The following is on a wheezy chroot:

root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-gnome-desktop
The following NEW packages will be installed:
[...]
Need to get 370 MB of archives. After unpacking 1099 MB will be used.

root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-xfce-desktop
The following NEW packages will be installed:
[...]
Need to get 115 MB of archives. After unpacking 348 MB will be used.

Desktop needing 370MB versus 115MB seems pretty significant to me.

Actually it's 1.1GiB versus 348MiB. But that is barring the rest of
the desktop.

If the concern was e.g. price of harddisk to install on, then the
finally used disk space be the measure.

...but the concern I raised is bandwidth for packages to be installed -
which over-simplified can be expressed as "does it fit on a CD?".

Numbers for Sid (in a chroot for task package, not for a full install),
is 389MB versus 101MB.



More precise measurements can be found in the installation manual, for
which we also install task-desktop etc. which ends up with 3.2GiB for
Gnome & KDE, 2.3GiB for XFCE, 2GiB for LXDE.

I believe (but haven't checked) that installation manual don't document
bandwidth needs - in the past users could simply assume "a single
desktop fits on first CD".


  - Jonas




--

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL

accelibreinfo, votre partenaire en informatique adaptée aux déficients visuels

Mail: te...@accelibreinfo.eu

Site Web: http://www.accelibreinfo.eu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e5060e.9080...@free.fr

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Andreas Barth]

* Olav Vitters (o...@vitters.nl) [140808 19:12]:
> [ support for init systems bedside systemd ]

> There was also a question what should happen if *upstream* removes
> support. That's not up to Debian Developers to patch back. Such was
> discussed and clarified. One of the questions that was voted on this was
> pretty much about this.

My memory of what we discussed and voted is different.

Basically we recommend to support as many init systems as reasonable
possible, and that is even true if upstream ceases support for it. It
might have some impact on what "reasonable" is after upstream ceases
support for some init system (and of course, as always it is prefered
to do such patches on upstream side), but it is definitly not
forbidden to patch support for some init system back into a package
(unless the package becomes by this "too broken to be supported", or
one of the many others things we prefer to not have in our archive -
as always). (And nothing here is actually init system specific, or
new etc.)



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808173049.gj20...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:05:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:41:13PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:29PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
> > > functionality, telling its users to use systemd instead.  That's an idea
> > > that's neither good nor acceptable.
> > 
> > I see you want to start a discussion about systemd? I rather not
> > participate. The decision was taken by ctte, suggest to not keep
> > rehashing if you want systemd. It also feels too much like saying what a
> > project should have done, 10+ months too late.
> 
> Yes, the decision was taken by ctte.  #746715 decided that all init systems
> are to be supported, not only systemd, and that functionality on non-systemd
> must not be dropped without a good reason.

That summary is not correct. The default is systemd. All other init
systems support should NOT be blocked (if lacking and someone wants to
add it). Effort SHOULD be made to support all init systems. Debian
Developers / *Packagers* SHOULD NOT remove other init system support
without good reason.

There was also a question what should happen if *upstream* removes
support. That's not up to Debian Developers to patch back. Such was
discussed and clarified. One of the questions that was voted on this was
pretty much about this.

> > > So reverting to a fully functional version of upower for jessie would be
> > > probably best.
> > 
> > You cannot have both installed at the same time. Meaning: software which
> > relies/uses new UPower cannot be installed at the same time as software
> > relying on the older one.
> 
> Except that even Gnome3 can work with upower 0.9, at least in the version
> that's going to end up in jessie.

Could be that I am mistaken. I thought Jessie would be going for 3.12.
But IMO it still doesn't matter. Either you have the problem with GNOME,
or maybe some other software.

> So you're dropping most functionality on non-systemd... why?

UPower is not GNOME, it is freedesktop.org. If UPower removes systemd
functionality, then people wanting that support should advocate with
UPower when it is being decided. That's why I announce such changes, to
ensure that people have a chance to get involved in case they don't
notice. If I read back on blog posts I made in the beginning of the year
I also highlighted it in blog posts. IIRC also talked about it on
debian-devel as well as other distribution mailing lists.

Often there was ample opportunity for various things to raise the
concerns. If that isn't done in a reasonable timeframe (2-4 weeks), then
development will move on.

>From my side I highlight whatever issues I see that might cause
problems, but that doesn't make things my problem or a problem caused by
GNOME just because I fwd / tell about it via a GNOME mailing list.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808165400.gi29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  8 août 2014 18:02 +0100, Neil McGovern  :

>> I'm not a Debian developer, just a Debian user, and I want to say that I was
>> happy to see XFCE being the default DE. Just because it's small, classic and
>> neutral DE - which GNOME 3 definitely isn't. I think XFCE is a better
>> default... because I think it's not that uncommon for people to really
>> dislike GNOME 3.
>> 
>
> Got bored. Made this: http://www.halon.org.uk/simplechooser/
>
> Can we do useful work instead now?

Oh, now we need a browser... ;-)

Your "Gnome 2" link on cd.html is incorrect.
-- 
Choose a data representation that makes the program simple.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Neil McGovern]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:15:17PM +0400, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
> I'm not a Debian developer, just a Debian user, and I want to say that I was
> happy to see XFCE being the default DE. Just because it's small, classic and
> neutral DE - which GNOME 3 definitely isn't. I think XFCE is a better
> default... because I think it's not that uncommon for people to really
> dislike GNOME 3.
> 

Got bored. Made this: http://www.halon.org.uk/simplechooser/

Can we do useful work instead now?

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Lorenzo Bandieri]

2014-08-07 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jordi Mallach :
> Hi Debian,
>
> It's been around 9 months since tasksel changed (for real) the default
> desktop for new installs. At the time of the change, it was mentioned
> the issue would be revisited before the freeze, around debconf time.
>
> Well, it's roughly that time. :) So I'd like to plainly request GNOME is
> reinstated as the default desktop environment for a number of reasons.
[snip]
>
> Many members of the Debian GNOME team feel shipping Xfce by default would
> mean regressing in a few key areas like, as mentioned before, accessibility,
> localisation and documentation of the default set of applications. We are wary
> about the state of some features of the current default with respect
> to power management and bluetooth, for example. These features are driven by,
> and working since day 1, by GNOME 3.12.

In my own PCs most of the time I have Arch Linux installed, and I use
Gnome 3 as my DE of choice since its first release. However, when I
have to install a GNU/Linux distro in a system I do not directly
control (i.e. my sister's pc, my mom's pc etc), or when I want a solid
distro, I always install Debian for its great stability, and I usually
choose Xfce as the DE. This is just to say that I have experience with
both the DE and I like them both, but in different ways.

I feel that Xfce4 is more conservative than Gnome 3, both in term of
look & feel and the way it is developed. Yes, this is my opinion, and
I have no 'hard data' to back up this claim, just my experience. My
point is that Gnome 3 has a history of abrupt (and sometimes
disruptive) changes between releases, and I say this as a generally
satisfied Gnome 3 user. A couple of examples come to mind. I don't
remember in which release, but support for terminal transparency was
abruptly and unexpectedly removed. You could call it an eye-candy, but
for me and many other users it was a feature. I used it to see an
underlying windows while typing. Now I use Xfce-terminal. Another
example: in Gnome 3.8 (I believe) the look and behavior of GDM were
abruptly changed. I used to have a customized background in my login
screen; one day I updated my system, and I found an ugly grey
background (e.g. http://worldofgnome.org/uploads/2013/03/gdm.png ). I
was sure I stumbled in a bug, but then to my surprise I realized that
*everyone* was seeing the grey background, and that it was actually
intended behaviour. I should also point out that at the time I
couldn't find a simple way to change the grey background (eg. a .conf
file to edit) so I desisted. As far as I know you needed (and I think
you still need, though I'm not sure) an external tool to change the
background in GDM. Personally, I'm happy enough with the look and feel
of Gnome 3 to tolerate these nuisances, but I have also to say that
this sudden changes don't feel very debianish. On the other hand, Xfce
has a slower relase cycle, and I don't remember any drastic change in
behavior between Xfce4 releases.

I'm not a DD, so I'm not advocating for one choice or the other.
Obviously, my experience is n=1, so my sample is probably not very
representative  of the whole population of users.

Just my 0.02 euros.

Lorenzo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cabqumk-fvj0qyjm6wp-z13a7_eimnftv-jsd3smyryr2yqe...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Andrew Shadura]

Hello,

On 8 August 2014 16:41, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> IMO, seems easier to recompile software not working with new UPower
> without UPower support, if possible. But that's obviously not my
> decision, I just want to highlight the extra work a default desktop
> incurs. I do hope that XFCE as default desktop doesn't result in
> crippling of more maintained software though :-P

There's another way: to patch the missing interfaces back to the
latest UPower version.

-- 
Cheers,
  Andrew


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cacujmdprejdgorvarfxvfte5wifahewis1eywysg2uphaxw...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-08-08 16:19:28)
> Jonas Smedegaard, le Fri 08 Aug 2014 16:11:58 +0200, a écrit :
>> The following is on a wheezy chroot:
>> 
>> root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-gnome-desktop
>> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>> [...]
>> Need to get 370 MB of archives. After unpacking 1099 MB will be used.
>> 
>> root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-xfce-desktop
>> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>> [...]
>> Need to get 115 MB of archives. After unpacking 348 MB will be used.
>> 
>> Desktop needing 370MB versus 115MB seems pretty significant to me.
>
> Actually it's 1.1GiB versus 348MiB. But that is barring the rest of 
> the desktop.

If the concern was e.g. price of harddisk to install on, then the 
finally used disk space be the measure.

...but the concern I raised is bandwidth for packages to be installed - 
which over-simplified can be expressed as "does it fit on a CD?".

Numbers for Sid (in a chroot for task package, not for a full install), 
is 389MB versus 101MB.


> More precise measurements can be found in the installation manual, for 
> which we also install task-desktop etc. which ends up with 3.2GiB for 
> Gnome & KDE, 2.3GiB for XFCE, 2GiB for LXDE.

I believe (but haven't checked) that installation manual don't document 
bandwidth needs - in the past users could simply assume "a single 
desktop fits on first CD".


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Adam Borowski]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:41:13PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:29PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
> > functionality, telling its users to use systemd instead.  That's an idea
> > that's neither good nor acceptable.
> 
> I see you want to start a discussion about systemd? I rather not
> participate. The decision was taken by ctte, suggest to not keep
> rehashing if you want systemd. It also feels too much like saying what a
> project should have done, 10+ months too late.

Yes, the decision was taken by ctte.  #746715 decided that all init systems
are to be supported, not only systemd, and that functionality on non-systemd
must not be dropped without a good reason.

> > So reverting to a fully functional version of upower for jessie would be
> > probably best.
> 
> You cannot have both installed at the same time. Meaning: software which
> relies/uses new UPower cannot be installed at the same time as software
> relying on the older one.

Except that even Gnome3 can work with upower 0.9, at least in the version
that's going to end up in jessie.

So you're dropping most functionality on non-systemd... why?

-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808150537.ga2...@angband.pl

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:19:42PM +0200, Axel Wagner wrote:
> that just my anecdotal evidence. As is my suspicion, that the vast
> majority of people who actually chose GNOME for it's technical merrits
> over XFCE are not people who will ever be participating in really *any*
> flamewar, as they are the population who like for "just work" and are
> non-technical people. But well, yes, I have no numbers on this either,
> so it probably shouldn't count as an argument too ;)

At GUADEC Karen Sandler gave a talk (not yet available on video I
think). At the start of GNOME 3.0, she got *loads* of flack regarding
the change. In most recent conferences she attended, she actually was
surprised to see how many people were using GNOME 3 (there were loads of
hands going up). I don't attend many conferences (just FOSDEM + GUADEC),
but found it interesting. I think Karen went to loads of conferences.

Then there was the Linus thing. He mentioned hating GNOME 3, then
briefly after that mentioned switching back to GNOME 3 again. What do
people remember or think he's using atm? And regarding Linus, he also
gave us (somewhat deserved) flack during 2.x :-P

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808144905.gh29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:29PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
> functionality, telling its users to use systemd instead.  That's an idea
> that's neither good nor acceptable.

I see you want to start a discussion about systemd? I rather not
participate. The decision was taken by ctte, suggest to not keep
rehashing if you want systemd. It also feels too much like saying what a
project should have done, 10+ months too late.

> So reverting to a fully functional version of upower for jessie would be
> probably best.

You cannot have both installed at the same time. Meaning: software which
relies/uses new UPower cannot be installed at the same time as software
relying on the older one. There was a discussion @ Gentoo regarding
this.

IMO, seems easier to recompile software not working with new UPower
without UPower support, if possible. But that's obviously not my
decision, I just want to highlight the extra work a default desktop
incurs. I do hope that XFCE as default desktop doesn't result in
crippling of more maintained software though :-P

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808144113.gg29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Olav Vitters]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:56:50PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hmm, pre-warning if there are no fixes is not enough. 
> 
> Let me ask you - why is libpng still holding back so many other things?
> Because not all png deps are converted. And we are speaking about years.
> 
> And just for practically no new functionality we switch with
> upower to a new version that breaks lots of other functionality?
> 
> Normally, on a incompatible change, the maintainers of the software
> that breaks other, provides fixes ... not just warnings.

Software is not maintenance free. A distribution like Debian ensures
that everything works together. If you choose to support software you'll
ensure that it works. Meaning: add patches in case upstream does not do
that.

UPower mentioned to use the systemd interface instead. There is
disagreement about this, etc. I see too much discussion regarding:
- systemd
- what UPower maintainers should do

While it should _also_ be about:
- how much extra work will Debian incur (rc bugs, etc), is that
  acceptable, etc

In the initial message it was mentioned that having an active upstream
provides benefits. If upstream is not active, then you can talk about
who should've done what all you want, but in practice you/Debian has a
bunch of extra work to do.
-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808143444.gf29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Ian Jackson]

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop"):
> And yes, many such computers are currently in use. And it would be a
> disservice not to provide CDs anymore. But that criteria should not be
> what guides our default for installation; a CD might not be able to
> have the full GNOME environment, but the computer using the CD would
> not be able to use it anyway.

Wouldn't such a computer be able to use xfce ?  I have a computer from
2003-2005 that seems to be running xfce perfectly happily (and I have
reinstalled it recently).

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/21476.57043.847379.678...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Axel Wagner]

Hi,

Norbert Preining  writes:
> Disagree. His statement is very clear. I guess everyone who has
> followed the development of G3 is well aware of the - let's say -
> disagreements that have poped up continuously.

I have. I am. The term "not neutral" is very ill-chosen for "they made
choices some people disagreed with" (which really is just another way to
say "they made choices").

> If you are asking for another flame war, you can have it.

I am not. But it is nice to see you aknowledge that this is really all
you are doing.

>> > Of course I have no real numbers! What I've said is just my personal 
>> > opinion, based on that I've seen a lot of flame wars about GNOME 3 on 
>> > the web, and a non-zero count of forks/derivatives of GNOME 3 all aiming 
>> > at providing a "more classic" environment (MATE, Cinnamon, Consort, 
>> > Budgie).
>> 
>> Your personal opinion is certainly not an argument that needs to be
>> taken into consideration for deciding on a default for debian,
>> especially if it is formed on such dubious grounds.
>
> So *your* personal opinion is any better?

No. Nor did I claim it to be.

>> > I don't want to discuss the specific usability aspects of GNOME 3, but 
>> > note there are NO such flame wars about XFCE :)
>> 
>> I am unsure about this statement, but if it is, I think this might very
>> well be more a reflection on the people who started those flames and
>> forks, than on any technical merrits XFCE might have over GNOME.
>
> So what do you want to say? I guess a simple "google-that-for-me"
> should show you thousands of flame-war like threads, blogs, whatever
> discussing the (de-)merits of G3.
>
> Now, tell me something similar from XFCE?

I clearly stated (and am willing to repeat once) that I am unsure about
this statement. I did not claim it to be false, nor do I now, nor am I
willing to spend any time on it whatsoever (this includes doing a single
google-search). I demonstrated that by saying, that I don't believe it
to be relevant, as in my experience the existence of flames about a
topic have no correlation whatsoever to actual technical merrits. I
thank you once again to prove my point by demonstrating, how little
respect these flames actually deserve by starting one again.

> And finally, let me know he is discussing *personal* opinions?

I assume you mean "s/he/who/" in this case? In that case, I am, as
clearly stated. It was an opinion about whether or not flames, heresay
and very much opinianated "arguments" by people demonstrably spreading
FUD have any place in this discussion.


Note: I use neither GNOME nor XFCE. From what I heard, most people who
actually used GNOME 3 for more than a few minutes didn't hate it, but
that just my anecdotal evidence. As is my suspicion, that the vast
majority of people who actually chose GNOME for it's technical merrits
over XFCE are not people who will ever be participating in really *any*
flamewar, as they are the population who like for "just work" and are
non-technical people. But well, yes, I have no numbers on this either,
so it probably shouldn't count as an argument too ;)

Enough trollfeeding,

Axel Wagner


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/87wqajhxmp.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Samuel Thibault]

Jonas Smedegaard, le Fri 08 Aug 2014 16:11:58 +0200, a écrit :
> The following is on a wheezy chroot:
> 
> root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-gnome-desktop
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> [...]
> Need to get 370 MB of archives. After unpacking 1099 MB will be used.
> 
> root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-xfce-desktop
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> [...]
> Need to get 115 MB of archives. After unpacking 348 MB will be used.
> 
> Desktop needing 370MB versus 115MB seems pretty significant to me.

Actually it's 1.1GiB versus 348MiB. But that is barring the rest of the
desktop.

More precise measurements can be found in the installation manual, for
which we also install task-desktop etc. which ends up with 3.2GiB for
Gnome & KDE, 2.3GiB for XFCE, 2GiB for LXDE.

Samuel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808141928.ge3...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Olav Vitters (2014-08-08 15:51:13)
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:26:20PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> I wonder if you still missed my point: Concern is not if computers 
>> are capable of reading DVDs, but the *bandwith* burden of installing 
>> and maintaining a larger desktop versus a smaller one.
>
> This feels like shifting goalposts. The initial change to XFCE 
> mentioned the install size and that for some countries. A reply was 
> given specifically on this matter from someone with knowledge on 
> various affected countries. It was mentioned that install size is not 
> so much of a concern.
>
> Now suddenly it is about bandwidth usage? That is not what was said 
> initially.

Seems you are talking about other posts than mine.

What I said initially I still stand by.  Did you read that?


> Further, I'd like to see you provide more details on the higher 
> bandwidth usage that GNOME apparently has vs XFCE and how much it 
> impacts these countries.

The following is on a wheezy chroot:

root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-gnome-desktop
The following NEW packages will be installed:
[...]
Need to get 370 MB of archives. After unpacking 1099 MB will be used.

root@bastian:/# aptitude install task-xfce-desktop
The following NEW packages will be installed:
[...]
Need to get 115 MB of archives. After unpacking 348 MB will be used.


Desktop needing 370MB versus 115MB seems pretty significant to me.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Norbert Preining]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
> functionality, telling its users to use systemd instead.  That's an idea
> that's neither good nor acceptable.
> 
> So reverting to a fully functional version of upower for jessie would be
> probably best.

+100

Norbert


PREINING, Norbert   http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808140433.gd5...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Norbert Preining]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014, Olav Vitters wrote:
> For such a change, 6-9 months of pre-warning should be enough. It would
> be way better if projects held back until all affected software changed
> (or maybe ensure affected software makes the changes). However, not very
> realistic (only so much time plus your adjusting the speed of other
> projects to the slowest one).

Hmm, pre-warning if there are no fixes is not enough. 

Let me ask you - why is libpng still holding back so many other things?
Because not all png deps are converted. And we are speaking about years.

And just for practically no new functionality we switch with
upower to a new version that breaks lots of other functionality?

Normally, on a incompatible change, the maintainers of the software
that breaks other, provides fixes ... not just warnings.


Norbert


PREINING, Norbert   http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808135650.gb5...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Adam Borowski]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:42:48AM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:39:44PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > Of course, this dire situation has come upon us due to the strong
> > interleaving of Gnome and Systemd and upower maintainers, uploading
> > without making sure not to break the rest of the infrastructure.
> 
> The upower change was announced by
> the maintainer well in advance, that announcement has been
> re-distributed by me/GNOME on October 2013:
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/distributor-list/2013-October/msg2.html
> 
> For such a change, 6-9 months of pre-warning should be enough. It would
> be way better if projects held back until all affected software changed
> (or maybe ensure affected software makes the changes). However, not very
> realistic (only so much time plus your adjusting the speed of other
> projects to the slowest one).

If I understand right, new upower basically throws away most of its
functionality, telling its users to use systemd instead.  That's an idea
that's neither good nor acceptable.

So reverting to a fully functional version of upower for jessie would be
probably best.

-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808135929.ga29...@angband.pl

Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

[Norbert Preining]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014, Axel Wagner wrote:
> > By "neutral" I've meant a DE without "dubious" solutions discussed in 
> > gnome3 flame wars all over the web. I don't really think we should also 
> > discuss it here, just because we don't really want to start another 
> > flame war :)
> 
> If you don't want to discuss your statement, you should have omitted
> it in the first place, because it obviously is no contribution to the 
> discussion.


Disagree. His statement is very clear. I guess everyone who has
followed the development of G3 is well aware of the - let's say -
disagreements that have poped up continuously.

If you are asking for another flame war, you can have it.

> > Of course I have no real numbers! What I've said is just my personal 
> > opinion, based on that I've seen a lot of flame wars about GNOME 3 on 
> > the web, and a non-zero count of forks/derivatives of GNOME 3 all aiming 
> > at providing a "more classic" environment (MATE, Cinnamon, Consort, 
> > Budgie).
> 
> Your personal opinion is certainly not an argument that needs to be
> taken into consideration for deciding on a default for debian,
> especially if it is formed on such dubious grounds.

So *your* personal opinion is any better?

> > I don't want to discuss the specific usability aspects of GNOME 3, but 
> > note there are NO such flame wars about XFCE :)
> 
> I am unsure about this statement, but if it is, I think this might very
> well be more a reflection on the people who started those flames and
> forks, than on any technical merrits XFCE might have over GNOME.

So what do you want to say? I guess a simple "google-that-for-me"
should show you thousands of flame-war like threads, blogs, whatever
discussing the (de-)merits of G3.

Now, tell me something similar from XFCE?

And finally, let me know he is discussing *personal* opinions?

Norbert


PREINING, Norbert   http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808135030.ga5...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at