4:57 p.m.
As of tomorrow's rawhide [1], gnome-session will no longer treat
llvmpipe as an unsupported driver. This means gnome-shell will run even
on hardware without a native 3D driver, including virt guests.
There are probably bugs! I've done some quick tests on the hardware I
have handy and in kvm, and things do appear to work. You, lucky
contestant, might have a different experience. If you do, bugzilla is
standing by and ready to take your call; please file against the 'mesa'
component and set me as the assignee. In the meantime you can still get
to fallback mode through the Graphics section of the System Info control
panel.
Very little performance work has been done on this yet - like,
literally, none - though there are some things you can do [2]. Outside
of virt you will probably want to tell your driver to use ShadowFB in
xorg.conf. This will disable hardware acceleration, but in exchange you
won't be doing very slow GetImages all the time to get textures loaded
into the compositor. In virt, however, the double-buffering done by
ShadowFB just slows you down, so you're probably best off switching your
driver to NoAccel instead.
The vesa driver should get this right for you already, as should cirrus
under virt.
Beyond that, most of the performance work is going to require new kernel
and Mesa features. For details, please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome_shell_software_rendering
If you're interested in contributing to this effort, please follow up on
dri-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org.
[1] - In particular, you'll need these packages or newer for things to
work:
mesa-*-7.11-9.fc17
cogl-1.8.2-4.fc17
gnome-session-3.3.1-2.fc17
[2] - It's something of a policy decision to get some of these things
"right" by default, because you're deciding to throw away hardware accel
on old chips, and some people who aren't using gnome-shell might think
that's worth keeping. We'll figure something out, I'm sure, but
contributions are most welcome.
- ajax
5:50 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 17:57 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
As of tomorrow's rawhide [1], gnome-session will no longer treat
llvmpipe as an unsupported driver. This means gnome-shell will run even
on hardware without a native 3D driver, including virt guests.
I said on IRC, but just to reiterate, this is completely awesome work,
major congratulations! I alerted Phoronix already ;)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:42 p.m.
Adam Jackson <ajax <at> redhat.com> writes:
As of tomorrow's rawhide [1], gnome-session will no longer treat
llvmpipe as an unsupported driver. This means gnome-shell will run even
on hardware without a native 3D driver, including virt guests.
For all of us gnome-shell sceptics that prefer the fallback mode, does that mean
that mutter will then be default WM for everything? Or does it mean that we'll
be evicted from the Gnome user space completely?
--
Bojan
1:09 a.m.
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 03:42 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Adam Jackson <ajax <at> redhat.com> writes:
> As of tomorrow's rawhide [1], gnome-session will no longer treat
> llvmpipe as an unsupported driver. This means gnome-shell will run even
> on hardware without a native 3D driver, including virt guests.
For all of us gnome-shell sceptics that prefer the fallback mode, does that mean
that mutter will then be default WM for everything? Or does it mean that we'll
be evicted from the Gnome user space completely?
That's really a policy decision for the GNOME / Fedora desktop teams,
not for ajax.
But based on what they've said in the past, I expect that once most
hardware that previously needed the fallback mode is covered, fallback
mode will die. AIUI, fallback mode isn't meant to be a GNOME
2-by-stealth for Shell refuseniks, it's purely an attempt to accommodate
hardware which doesn't support Shell.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:23 a.m.
Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
That's really a policy decision for the GNOME / Fedora desktop
teams,
not for ajax.
Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the know, so I asked.
But based on what they've said in the past, I expect that once
most
hardware that previously needed the fallback mode is covered, fallback
mode will die. AIUI, fallback mode isn't meant to be a GNOME
2-by-stealth for Shell refuseniks, it's purely an attempt to accommodate
hardware which doesn't support Shell.
Right. OK, fair enough. Thanks for the info.
I guess for me, it's going to be either
"find-enough-extensions-to-never-see-overview-in-shell" or another desktop. Ah,
well...
--
Bojan
1:33 a.m.
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 06:23 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
> That's really a policy decision for the GNOME / Fedora desktop teams,
> not for ajax.
Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the know, so I asked.
No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is what the
GNOME / desktop team have said in public, but what they've said seems to
point in a Shell-y direction, to me.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
5:25 a.m.
Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
> Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the
know, so I asked.
No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is what the
GNOME / desktop team have said in public, but what they've said seems to
point in a Shell-y direction, to me.
I meant, on average, a guy working for Red Hat would know a whole lot more about
Gnome than myself, who's got zero knowledge.
Anyhow, it's not the shell per se that's the problem. It's the overview mode
-
so bloody annoying with its constant expose in/out animations, lack of desktop
visibility etc. I know - it looks great on YouTube. Not so great when you have
use it for work all day.
Ah, never mind - just whinging...
--
Bojan
8:21 a.m.
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the know,
> > so I asked.
>
> No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is
> what the GNOME / desktop team have said in public, but what they've
> said seems to point in a Shell-y direction, to me.
I meant, on average, a guy working for Red Hat would know a whole lot
more about Gnome than myself, who's got zero knowledge.
Anyhow, it's not the shell per se that's the problem. It's the
overview mode - so bloody annoying with its constant expose in/out
animations, lack of desktop visibility etc. I know - it looks great
on YouTube. Not so great when you have use it for work all day.
Ah, never mind - just whinging...
Bojan,
Install xfce. You'll be happy w/that.
-sv
9:10 a.m.
On 4 November 2011 13:21, seth vidal <skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
> Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
>
> > > Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the know,
> > > so I asked.
> >
> > No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is
> > what the GNOME / desktop team have said in public, but what they've
> > said seems to point in a Shell-y direction, to me.
>
> I meant, on average, a guy working for Red Hat would know a whole lot
> more about Gnome than myself, who's got zero knowledge.
>
> Anyhow, it's not the shell per se that's the problem. It's the
> overview mode - so bloody annoying with its constant expose in/out
> animations, lack of desktop visibility etc. I know - it looks great
> on YouTube. Not so great when you have use it for work all day.
>
> Ah, never mind - just whinging...
>
Install xfce. You'll be happy w/that.
This is essentially giving up. It's frustrating to be stuck on
overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
/something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
okay. Actually, the responsiveness issue isn't limited just to
overview, but that's where it's most annoying because it completely
cuts you off. (And ten seconds to get the applications list, really?)
--
imalone
9:17 a.m.
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:10:57 +0000
Ian Malone <ibmalone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 November 2011 13:21, seth vidal
<skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
> Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > > Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the
>> > > know, so I asked.
>> >
>> > No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is
>> > what the GNOME / desktop team have said in public, but what
>> > they've said seems to point in a Shell-y direction, to me.
>>
>> I meant, on average, a guy working for Red Hat would know a whole
>> lot more about Gnome than myself, who's got zero knowledge.
>>
>> Anyhow, it's not the shell per se that's the problem. It's the
>> overview mode - so bloody annoying with its constant expose in/out
>> animations, lack of desktop visibility etc. I know - it looks great
>> on YouTube. Not so great when you have use it for work all day.
>>
>> Ah, never mind - just whinging...
>>
>
> Install xfce. You'll be happy w/that.
>
This is essentially giving up. It's frustrating to be stuck on
overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
/something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
okay. Actually, the responsiveness issue isn't limited just to
overview, but that's where it's most annoying because it completely
cuts you off. (And ten seconds to get the applications list, really?)
It's not giving up. It's moving on to something which does what you
want.
There's no malice here - just sense.
-sv
9:33 a.m.
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 14:10 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
It's frustrating to be stuck on
overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
/something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
okay. Actually, the responsiveness issue isn't limited just to
overview, but that's where it's most annoying because it completely
cuts you off. (And ten seconds to get the applications list, really?)
I hate that, too -- the shell deserves some tuning to not always show up
with about 5%-10% CPU consumed, in the top 3 of top (ha!) -- but to be
fair, opening the GNOME 2 panel application menu for the first time
wasn't quicker (at least for me).
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils(a)redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
9:36 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Malone <ibmalone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 November 2011 13:21, seth vidal
<skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
> Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > > Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the know,
>> > > so I asked.
>> >
>> > No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is
>> > what the GNOME / desktop team have said in public, but what they've
>> > said seems to point in a Shell-y direction, to me.
>>
>> I meant, on average, a guy working for Red Hat would know a whole lot
>> more about Gnome than myself, who's got zero knowledge.
>>
>> Anyhow, it's not the shell per se that's the problem. It's the
>> overview mode - so bloody annoying with its constant expose in/out
>> animations, lack of desktop visibility etc. I know - it looks great
>> on YouTube. Not so great when you have use it for work all day.
>>
>> Ah, never mind - just whinging...
>>
>
> Install xfce. You'll be happy w/that.
>
This is essentially giving up. It's frustrating to be stuck on
overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
/something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
okay. Actually, the responsiveness issue isn't limited just to
overview, but that's where it's most annoying because it completely
cuts you off. (And ten seconds to get the applications list, really?)
That's what people call "bugs" please file them (upstream) so that we
can fix them.
9:53 a.m.
Tell us again where to find that "gnome shell for dummies" doc?
I tried to give it a fair trial, but I found it so
non-intuitive/counter-intuitive that I gave up after an hour and
switched to Forced Fallback Mode.
10 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Tell us again where to find that "gnome shell for dummies"
doc?
The cheat sheet? http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet
I tried to give it a fair trial, but I found it so
non-intuitive/counter-intuitive that I gave up after an hour and
switched to Forced Fallback Mode.
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
11:25 a.m.
On 4 November 2011 14:36, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Malone <ibmalone(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> This is essentially giving up. It's frustrating to be stuck on
> overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
> /something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
> okay. Actually, the responsiveness issue isn't limited just to
> overview, but that's where it's most annoying because it completely
> cuts you off. (And ten seconds to get the applications list, really?)
That's what people call "bugs" please file them (upstream) so that we
can fix them.
Somewhere like bugzilla perhaps?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743250
If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
different bugzilla accounts by now.
--
imalone
12:35 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:23:02PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
> different bugzilla accounts by now.
So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
Shipping bug-free software is the job of maintainers. It's reasonable to
ask a reporter to take an issue upstream if you feel that that'll result
in the bug being fixed faster, but there's no reason to mandate that and
it certainly doesn't match the common use of bugzilla.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
12:46 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:23:02PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ian Malone wrote:
> > If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
> > different bugzilla accounts by now.
>
> So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
> forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
Shipping bug-free software is the job of maintainers. It's reasonable to
ask a reporter to take an issue upstream if you feel that that'll result
in the bug being fixed faster, but there's no reason to mandate that and
it certainly doesn't match the common use of bugzilla.
Argh I didn't intend to start this kind of discussion by "(upstream)"
I just meant "I prefer upstream" ... I didn't mandate anything.
1:17 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
Shipping bug-free software is the job of maintainers. It's
reasonable to
ask a reporter to take an issue upstream if you feel that that'll result
in the bug being fixed faster, but there's no reason to mandate that and
it certainly doesn't match the common use of bugzilla.
My personal policy.
1) If I can reproduce it, and I agree that its a bug, I'll try to
drive it forward and tell the reporter to poke me in the eye on some
reminder timescale..because you know..life happens..and reminders are
good.
2) if either of those two pre-conditions aren't satisfied, I encourage
them to file it upstream and hand be back a reference so I can track
it and respond if there's additional information needed that the
impacted user doesn't know how to provide. But at the end of the day,
I feel its most important to have upstream talking directly with the
person who can reproduce the problem. If I can't, I'm just a lossy
communication medium.
-jef
1:45 p.m.
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 10:17 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Garrett
<mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> Shipping bug-free software is the job of maintainers. It's reasonable to
> ask a reporter to take an issue upstream if you feel that that'll result
> in the bug being fixed faster, but there's no reason to mandate that and
> it certainly doesn't match the common use of bugzilla.
My personal policy.
1) If I can reproduce it, and I agree that its a bug, I'll try to
drive it forward and tell the reporter to poke me in the eye on some
reminder timescale..because you know..life happens..and reminders are
good.
2) if either of those two pre-conditions aren't satisfied, I encourage
them to file it upstream and hand be back a reference so I can track
it and respond if there's additional information needed that the
impacted user doesn't know how to provide. But at the end of the day,
I feel its most important to have upstream talking directly with the
person who can reproduce the problem. If I can't, I'm just a lossy
communication medium.
That's exactly the same policy I apply as well.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
1:49 p.m.
...snip...
Just another datapoint, my personal policy here is:
a) ask the reporter if they could report it upstream, as they will be
able to answer questions and advocate for their bug much better that I
can in some cases.
b) If they say no, and I agree it's a bug/issue that should be
addressed, then I report it upstream and try to bridge between fedora
reporter and upstream. If something breaks down, too bad.
kevin
12:43 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
> different bugzilla accounts by now.
So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
While I agree it can be a pain, don't you want to know if a user is
having problems with a package you're responsible for? If they file it
upstream there's a chance you will not find out about it, nor would
you know when it's fixed and a new package should be built.
Richard
6:39 p.m.
On 4 November 2011 17:23, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
> different bugzilla accounts by now.
So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
Is there any point in me reporting any bug in Fedora bugzilla ever then?
--
imalone
7:50 p.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
On 11/04/2011 05:39 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 4 November 2011 17:23, Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
wrote:
> Ian Malone wrote:
>> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
>> different bugzilla accounts by now.
>
> So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
> forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
>
Is there any point in me reporting any bug in Fedora bugzilla ever then?
Sure, but understand that it may not be as effective as reporting
upstream. I think it is useful for tracking purposes and for other
Fedora users to find (and why I hate the closed->upstream approach).
Sometimes it really is a bug in the Fedora package or in interaction
with Fedora libraries.
But many (most) Fedora packagers are over worked or do this in their
very limited free time and are almost certainly not as experienced with
the code as the upstream maintainers.
As an example, I recently filed a bug against ghostscript. Now, Tim
Waugh is a great guy and often very responsive, but this time nothing
happened for a bit (I'm guessing he was busy :-). So I filed upstream
and it was fixed in a day. I notified Tim of the fix in the Fedora bug
and an update was shortly on its way (courtesy of that nice Tim guy).
Yes, I have dozens of accounts in upstream issue trackers. No big deal.
I want the issues I'm running up against fixed as soon as possible and
filing upstream I've found is the most effective means. Filing in both
is even better. But I won't call you lazy if you don't :)
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
3:49 a.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
Am 05.11.2011 01:50, schrieb Orion Poplawski:
On 11/04/2011 05:39 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 17:23, Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
>> Ian Malone wrote:
>>> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
>>> different bugzilla accounts by now.
>>
>> So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
>> forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
>>
>
> Is there any point in me reporting any bug in Fedora bugzilla ever then?
yes - because most maintainers are having bugzilla-accounts upstream
and reading the uptream-mailing-lists and are much more cooperative as
the KDE SIG, especially Kevin Kofler
if you than report a bundle of new introduced bugs upstream you are
told in the case of KDE yous hould file for every piece a seperate
bugreport
guys this is not the way you can act with users treat them report
exactly where and how you like it, a few peopole will do, most
will never again report any bug and stop testing packages and
later if there are too few testers maintainers are whining "why?"
2:18 p.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
Reindl Harald wrote:
yes - because most maintainers are having bugzilla-accounts upstream
and reading the uptream-mailing-lists and are much more cooperative as
the KDE SIG, especially Kevin Kofler
Yes, we have Bugzilla accounts upstream. But as I explained, upstream wants
to talk to the actual person experiencing the bug, not to a middleman. Plus,
we get many bug reports, it'd be very time-consuming for us to forward them
all upstream, whereas you as a user (hopefully) have much fewer bug reports
to deal with. It's not our job to play "stille Post" for you (a game which
necessarily loses information with every middleman you introduce).
if you than report a bundle of new introduced bugs upstream you are
told in the case of KDE yous hould file for every piece a seperate
bugreport
Of course! It is just plain impossible to work with a "bug report" which
conflates several, totally different issues, which need to be tracked and
fixed separately. Upstream will also require one bug report per issue. It's
part of the absolute basics of bug reporting. We just cannot track what's
fixed and what's still open if we have multiple issues in one report,
because a report can only be either open or closed.
guys this is not the way you can act with users treat them report
exactly where and how you like it, a few peopole will do, most
will never again report any bug and stop testing packages and
later if there are too few testers maintainers are whining "why?"
Thankfully, not all users are as lazy and arrogant as you.
Kevin Kofler
2:32 p.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
Am 05.11.2011 20:18, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Reindl Harald wrote:
> yes - because most maintainers are having bugzilla-accounts upstream
> and reading the uptream-mailing-lists and are much more cooperative as
> the KDE SIG, especially Kevin Kofler
Yes, we have Bugzilla accounts upstream. But as I explained, upstream wants
to talk to the actual person experiencing the bug, not to a middleman. Plus,
we get many bug reports, it'd be very time-consuming for us to forward them
all upstream, whereas you as a user (hopefully) have much fewer bug reports
to deal with. It's not our job to play "stille Post" for you (a game which
necessarily loses information with every middleman you introduce).
most maintainers see this different and only the fact that fedora-packages
are mostly patched makes it not useful throw all upstream first
the sense of a distribution for users is have a centralized source for
packages and problems, if your standard-answer is "report upstream"
you are damaging the benefits of a distribution for users
i have filled MANY bugreports in the last years and really often
some hours later there was a new version on koji, maintainer aksed
to try this, confirmed as "works now" and the maintainer submitted
his patch upstream and included it as long iht was not fixed upstream
in the fedora-packages - this way users start to love fedora, the
maintainers and all peopole from users, maintainers to upstream
developers are happy - your way of handling bugreports is the
exactly oppiste of this
> if you than report a bundle of new introduced bugs upstream you
are
> told in the case of KDE yous hould file for every piece a seperate
> bugreport
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236025 is the best example that
this is not useful - in this case some random guy decided to replace
a whole io-subsytem from scratch without any knowledge what he is
doing for POSSIBLE get better performance sometimes later which
is not true in exactly this case because the limit is the network
and not the kio-slave
after such a useless, not needed replacement force users open
a bunch of bugreports instead revert the whole changes and
release them if they are finished and useable is the wrong way
anyways: fact is that if you punsih users how to report bugs in
such ways the result will be for MANY of them stop reporting bugs
3:57 p.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 09:49:16 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
guys this is not the way you can act with users treat them report
exactly where and how you like it, a few peopole will do, most
will never again report any bug and stop testing packages and
later if there are too few testers maintainers are whining "why?"
If it's many users who are affected by the same bug, surely one of them
can contribute a little bit and report the bug directly to the software
developers. This is especially true for bugs the package maintainer cannot
reproduce.
Refusal to help with testing and bug-reporting will backfire eventually.
It will be one of the users who will start whining about a pet peeve bug.
Still, a user reporting a bug in Fedora bugzilla should get _some_
response rather sooner than later, even if it were a canned response or a
fully automated one.
Btw, with ABRT, many users just dump their report into bugzilla with only
a few added words (if at all) and without out paying attention to NEEDINFO
or questions asked by the package maintainer(s).
4:52 a.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
On 5 November 2011 00:50, Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com> wrote:
On 11/04/2011 05:39 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 17:23, Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
>> Ian Malone wrote:
>>> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a dozen
>>> different bugzilla accounts by now.
>>
>> So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
>> forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
>>
>
> Is there any point in me reporting any bug in Fedora bugzilla ever then?
>
Sure, but understand that it may not be as effective as reporting
upstream. I think it is useful for tracking purposes and for other
Fedora users to find (and why I hate the closed->upstream approach).
Sometimes it really is a bug in the Fedora package or in interaction
with Fedora libraries.
Absolutely agree, which is why my first response is to file in Fedora.
Additionally Fedora will have a particular version of a given package,
the maintainer hopefully knows more than me about differences and the
current development of their packages, part of the role must be to
facilitate communication with upstream. If there's one person
reporting a bug they know nothing about then telling them to go
upstream is fine, if five people have reported bugs in Fedora then
it's probably necessary to take a larger role in coordinating with
upstream.
Unless Fedora believes that the maintainer's responsibility stops at
getting the package built successfully there is a communication
element to the role. This includes things they can do without ever
looking at code, like knowing about how the upstream for their package
does things or knowing particular people to contact.
But many (most) Fedora packagers are over worked or do this in their
very limited free time and are almost certainly not as experienced with
the code as the upstream maintainers.
I don't expect a maintainer to fix a bug, I don't really expect them
to post it upstream either if it's just me reporting it, but there did
used to be at least a triage process.
Yes, I have dozens of accounts in upstream issue trackers. No big
deal.
I want the issues I'm running up against fixed as soon as possible and
filing upstream I've found is the most effective means. Filing in both
is even better. But I won't call you lazy if you don't :)
Thank you, I did object to being called lazy on the basis I don't
first file every bug I see in the upstream. Package maintainers don't
have a monopoly on being busy or having other commitments, but they
have volunteered to take on some responsibility.
What would be nice would be the ability to forward bugs upstream from
within bugzilla. Having dozens of accounts you hardly ever use becomes
a maintenance issue: details like the last few times I reported gnome
bugs directly I had to reset my password because I kept getting caught
out by its length limits being different from most others or trying to
sign up for a bugzilla account and finding your email is already
registered, things like this are unnecessary overhead for everyone.
--
imalone
3:40 p.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
Ian Malone wrote:
What would be nice would be the ability to forward bugs upstream
from
within bugzilla.
Yes, definitely! But the problem is that getting it right is hard, and
requires closer cooperation with upstream infrastructure than we currently
have. (In particular, we'd like the bug to show up as reported by the
original reporter in Fedora and/or with that original reporter CCed, without
them having to register for an upstream account first.)
Kevin Kofler
4 p.m.
New subject: reporting bugs
Dne 5.11.2011 21:40, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Ian Malone wrote:
> What would be nice would be the ability to forward bugs upstream from
> within bugzilla.
Yes, definitely! But the problem is that getting it right is hard, and
requires closer cooperation with upstream infrastructure than we currently
have. (In particular, we'd like the bug to show up as reported by the
original reporter in Fedora and/or with that original reporter CCed, without
them having to register for an upstream account first.)
Just to add "I told you so"
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/79936
Unfortunately, bugzilla still doesn't support inter-site communication.
List of the upstream (yes ;)) bugs concerning this could be provided
upon the request. Also, I am quite sure, that a Perl hacker willing to
help with their fixing would be warmly welcomed.
Best,
Matěj
9:33 a.m.
Dne 5.11.2011 00:39, Ian Malone napsal(a):
Is there any point in me reporting any bug in Fedora bugzilla ever
then?
Of course, there are plenty of bugs caused by our packaging or moments
when one programs stomps on the other one's toes.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#upstream: “We
only keep bug open on redhat.com to track our immediate short-term TODO
items, or issues with our patches/packaging, or because the upstream
package in question has poor bug tracking.”
Matěj
7:17 p.m.
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:23:02 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> If I filed every bug in the distro in upstream I'd have a
dozen
> different bugzilla accounts by now.
So what? Maintainers are not messengers, they have other work to do than
forwarding the bugs you're too lazy to file directly at the right place.
IMHO you are very, very wrong about this. A maintainer is fully
responsible for the product he is delivering into the hands of users.
Sending them to file bugs upstream means not doing maintainer's job.
Aside from the abdication of responsibility, there are a few technical
problems with the idea as well. The need for a given user to allocate
accounts and the resulting chilling effect is one downside, as already
mentioned. The bug is not going anywhere if you make it harder for
the user to file! Also, upstream often refuses to deal with distro
bugs, and may ask to rebuild from the source or to use upstream-built
releases.
-- Pete
7:09 p.m.
Ian Malone <ibmalone <at> gmail.com> writes:
This is essentially giving up. It's frustrating to be stuck on
overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
/something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
okay.
For me, it goes further than that. I do not want overview mode - ever. Fast,
slow - in any shape or form. It reduces visibility of my desktop in normal use,
introduces kitchen sink approach to "doing something else", attacks me with
unnecessary animations when I never asked for them etc. It's just silliness that
should be dropped.
Just look at all the extensions that sprung up:
- extension to have apps menu on the top bar
- extension to switch workspaces from the top bar
- extension to have constant dash
Essentially, extensions to have Gnome 2.
PS. Yes, overview _still_ looks great on YouTube. :-)
--
Bojan
4:08 a.m.
On 05.11.2011 01:09, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Ian Malone <ibmalone <at> gmail.com> writes:
> This is essentially giving up. It's frustrating to be stuck on
> overview mode on a four core machine while gnome-shell is doing
> /something/ but you don't know what. If it worked fluidly it would be
> okay.
For me, it goes further than that. I do not want overview mode - ever. Fast,
slow - in any shape or form. It reduces visibility of my desktop in normal use,
introduces kitchen sink approach to "doing something else", attacks me with
unnecessary animations when I never asked for them etc. It's just silliness that
should be dropped.
Just look at all the extensions that sprung up:
- extension to have apps menu on the top bar
- extension to switch workspaces from the top bar
- extension to have constant dash
Essentially, extensions to have Gnome 2.
PS. Yes, overview _still_ looks great on YouTube. :-)
Yet look at all the happy
users of default Gnome 3!
I am one of them and I went directly from the tilling-WM Xmonad to gnome
3! So you can't say it's only for absolute noobs :). I installed it and
it took about a week to get used to it so that I stopped thinking "why
the heck did they do it" but instead started to understand the new
Concepts. Today after about a Year of usage I have to say that its the
best user interface that I ever used so far!
The only negative points that I still don't get is the removal of the
power of button (without config to change it). But yes there is an
extension to add it again!
So just because the rants are much more visible don't think it is the
majority! ;)
enaut
8:40 a.m.
w <at> googlemail.com>
writes:
Yet look at all the happy users of
default Gnome 3!
I am one of them and I went directly
from the tilling-WM
Xmonad to gnome
3! So you can't say it's only for
absolute noobs :). I
installed it and
it took about a week to get used to it
so that I stopped
thinking "why
the heck did they do it" but instead
started to
understand the new
Concepts. Today after about a Year of
usage I have to say that
its the
best user interface that I ever used so
far!
The only negative points that I still
don't get is the
removal of the
power of button (without config to
change it). But yes there
is an
extension to add it again!
So just because the rants are much
more visible don't think it is the
majority! ;)
Please. What would you think of the
system that when you click on FF starts
FF, Evo and Gimp? I think you would say
the system is broken.
Right now, if I want to start an app, the
shell gives me zoom out, search,
expose, workspaces, dash and apps,
followed by zoom in. WTF? Seriously?
I am glad that you can take a lot of pain,
but when things don't make sense, they
don't make sense. No rant - just facts.
--
Bojan
8:59 a.m.
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 13:40 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
w <at> googlemail.com>
writes:
> Yet look at all the happy users of
default Gnome 3!
> I am one of them
[... snip ...]
Please. What would you think of the
system that when you click on FF starts
FF, Evo and Gimp? I think you would say
the system is broken.
Right now, if I want to start an app, the
shell gives me zoom out, search,
expose, workspaces, dash and apps,
followed by zoom in. WTF? Seriously?
Right now, if I want to start an app, I just hit alt+f2, type the first
few letters, hit tab and then enter.
No zoom, no search, no expose, no workspaces, no dash.
Just see it that way: you have one powerful interface to do advanced
stuff (reorganizing windows, editing your favorites, searching,...) and
a few simple keyboard shortcuts to do those same actions faster:
- alt+f2 to run an app
- ctrl+alt+arrow up/down to change workspace
Etc...
Nothing broken here. Just convenience, efficiency and adaptation to my
workflows, whether I'm trying to be productive or just relaxing.
I am glad that you can take a lot of pain,
He wrote he was happy with Gnome 3, which doesn't tell me he is capable
of taking a lot of pain, rather that he is enjoying this environment.
And so am I.
In fact, I'm taking a lot of pain when I have to go back to Gnome 2,
which I used to love before I moved to Gnome 3.
It's obvious that Gnome 3 doesn't work for you. Just use something else
then, no one is forcing you to « take that pain ». At least two
alternatives have been suggested already in this thread, so pick the one
that works for you, and be happy with it, while others are happy with
something else.
--
Mathieu
4:56 p.m.
Mathieu Bridon <bochecha <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
Right now, if I want to start an app, I just hit alt+f2, type the
first
few letters, hit tab and then enter.
No zoom, no search, no expose, no workspaces, no dash.
Just see it that way: you have one powerful interface to do advanced
stuff (reorganizing windows, editing your favorites, searching,...) and
a few simple keyboard shortcuts to do those same actions faster:
- alt+f2 to run an app
- ctrl+alt+arrow up/down to change workspace
Etc...
Tried and true advice for the broken _graphical_ UI - just use keyboard
shortcuts, type etc. Straight back to the 80s.
Nothing broken here.
If _nothing_ was broken, you wouldn't have to resort to shortcuts (which can, of
course, be added to most UIs - this is not in question).
It's obvious that Gnome 3 doesn't work for you.
It does - in fallback mode. It's very nice, actually. I would like to continue
using Gnome, otherwise I wouldn't discuss any of it here.
--
Bojan
7:33 a.m.
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 13:40 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
w <at> googlemail.com>
writes:
> Yet look at all the happy users of
default Gnome 3!
> I am one of them and I went directly
from the tilling-WM Xmonad to gnome
> 3! So you can't say it's only for
absolute noobs :). I installed it and
> it took about a week to get used to it
so that I stopped thinking "why
> the heck did they do it" but instead
started to understand the new
> Concepts. Today after about a Year of
usage I have to say that its the
> best user interface that I ever used so
far!
> The only negative points that I still
don't get is the removal of the
> power of button (without config to
change it). But yes there is an
> extension to add it again!
> So just because the rants are much
more visible don't think it is the
> majority! ;)
Please. What would you think of the
system that when you click on FF starts
FF, Evo and Gimp? I think you would say
the system is broken.
Right now, if I want to start an app, the
shell gives me zoom out, search,
expose, workspaces, dash and apps,
followed by zoom in. WTF? Seriously?
I am glad that you can take a lot of pain,
but when things don't make sense, they
don't make sense. No rant - just facts.
You won't be able to convince Gnome3 zealots.
Believe me, a lot of people tried.
Vote with your legs. Switch to a different desktop.
A lot of people switched to xfce.
--
vda
4:31 p.m.
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:33 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
You won't be able to convince Gnome3 zealots.
That's a bit harsh, I think. They are just very impressionable folk. :-)
Believe me, a lot of people tried.
I would like to believe that a rational argument eventually prevails.
Vote with your legs. Switch to a different desktop.
A lot of people switched to xfce.
Yeah, it seems so.
I have a lot years invested in Gnome, helped fix many bugs by diligently
reporting problems, chasing traces etc. Don't want to throw all that
away just because one aspect of one program is not done right.
I also do not dislike gnome-shell per se. Many things are done right and
make sense. Overview, on the other hand, looks like an implementation of
RFC1925(6).
I think what will most likely happen is that someone out there will come
up with an extension to nuke the Activities button and replace it with
Applications button. And that will be the end of that discussion.
--
Bojan
6:45 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 09:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
I think what will most likely happen is that someone out there will
come
up with an extension to nuke the Activities button and replace it with
Applications button. And that will be the end of that discussion.
There's been one for months, and yet 'the end of that discussion' does
not appear to have come, and not all Shell users use it.
http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
6:53 p.m.
Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:
There's been one for months, and yet 'the end of that
discussion' does
not appear to have come, and not all Shell users use it.
http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html
Yeah, guilty as charged on the discussion bit.
--
Bojan
7:25 p.m.
On 11/08/2011 12:45 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 09:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> I think what will most likely happen is that someone out there will come
> up with an extension to nuke the Activities button and replace it with
> Applications button. And that will be the end of that discussion.
There's been one for months, and yet 'the end of that discussion' does
not appear to have come, and not all Shell users use it.
http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html
I also found the recent Linux Mint approach sensible.
http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1851
They're getting lots of unity defectors.
To me it seems like low hanging fruit to install some
of these extensions + gnome-tweak-tool on Fedora
and integrate these options into the settings panel
(even as an "extra-settings" item that starts gnome-tweak-tool).
I realize that options are often a sign of incomplete software,
but with direct user interaction, options can be a necessary evil
to deal with people's tastes and expectations.
cheers,
Pádraig.
12:31 a.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 09:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:33 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> You won't be able to convince Gnome3 zealots.
That's a bit harsh, I think. They are just very impressionable folk. :-)
That's also a bit harsh I think, and I'd appreciate it if you could
simply assume that we made the conscious choice to use the environment
that works best for us.
> Believe me, a lot of people tried.
I would like to believe that a rational argument eventually prevails.
So would I, but you seem to be just as much camped in your boots as you
accuse us of being, and refuse the rational arguments we proposed.
So the only thing I can suggest now is that you simply agree to disagree
and stop wasting everybody's bandwidth.
> Vote with your legs. Switch to a different desktop.
> A lot of people switched to xfce.
Yeah, it seems so.
[... snip ...]
I think what will most likely happen is that someone out there will
come
up with an extension to nuke the Activities button and replace it with
Applications button. And that will be the end of that discussion.
You probably want to switch to Linux Mint 12 when it comes out with
their GSME enabled.
--
Mathieu
2:43 a.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 09:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:33 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> You won't be able to convince Gnome3 zealots.
That's a bit harsh, I think. They are just very impressionable folk. :-)
> Believe me, a lot of people tried.
I would like to believe that a rational argument eventually prevails.
This assumes that the choice of desktop is a purely rational one.
It is not. People are different. Gnome 3 crowd implemented Gnome 3
Shell to *their* own liking. It makes sense to *them*.
Apparently they did not consider that a large group of users was quite
happy with Gnome 2 desktop and did not need any revolutionary
reshuffling in that area.
They don't listen to our arguments. It's like talking to a wall.
I only hear endless "try it for a week, you'll like it" and "its the
progress, stupid". I think such attitude towards your user base is
arrogant and ultimately self-harming: users *will* change to
alternatives with less arrogant developer team. And I will not hesitate
to recommend that route to anyone who is pissed off by Gnome 3 Shell
disaster of the UI design.
I have a lot years invested in Gnome, helped fix many bugs by
diligently
reporting problems, chasing traces etc. Don't want to throw all that
away just because one aspect of one program is not done right.
Good luck then.
--
vda
3:46 p.m.
enaut wrote:
I am one of them and I went directly from the tilling-WM Xmonad to
gnome
3! So you can't say it's only for absolute noobs :).
The fact that you were using a tiling WM first shows that you are much more
willing to adapt to unconventional designs than most other users. I, for
one, want my computer to work the way I learned and interiorized a computer
works, any "innovative" interface destroys my automatisms and confuses me.
I'm using Plasma Desktop with the Classic menu (not the default fancy
Kickoff), only 1 virtual desktop and only the default activity.
Kevin Kofler
9:04 p.m.
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler <at> chello.at> writes:
I, for
one, want my computer to work the way I learned and interiorized a computer
works, any "innovative" interface destroys my automatisms and confuses me.
I'm using Plasma Desktop with the Classic menu (not the default fancy
Kickoff), only 1 virtual desktop and only the default activity.
I'm not actually arguing against certain features of gnome-shell based on what
I'm used to. For instance, I am not disputing that having an apps menu that can
be searched and is both flat and nested is useful. I'm not disputing that having
one panel is better than two, because it takes less precious desktop space. I'm
not disputing that having search in general is useful etc.
What I'm disputing is usefulness of the overview. It brings nothing to the table
- for anyone. Rationalisations for it as as funny as rationalisations against
the taskbar. Usually we are told that users would be too confused by seeing
workspaces/taskbar on the panel or some such. Who are these poor souls that get
confused by having more visibility that also gives them the ability to directly
navigate to where they want to go, while taking no more space from the desktop?
With the taskbar, we've been told that it's not a true representation of running
apps. The next piece of advice is usually that dash can also be used to switch
tasks. I guess the dash is then a true representation of running apps. Probably
because it's vertical. ;-)
With overview, shell introduces unnecessary view switches (at least two for each
"other" task), UI elements user never asked for etc. Just makes things less
visible, more cumbersome and slower to use. Not to mention annoying.
Just think of doing a cut and paste from one workspace to the next using shell
and overview using nothing but GUI. I reckon you'd get a vertigo. :-)
--
Bojan
5:57 a.m.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler <at> chello.at> writes:
> I, for
> one, want my computer to work the way I learned and interiorized a computer
> works, any "innovative" interface destroys my automatisms and confuses me.
>
> I'm using Plasma Desktop with the Classic menu (not the default fancy
> Kickoff), only 1 virtual desktop and only the default activity.
I'm not actually arguing against certain features of gnome-shell based on what
I'm used to. For instance, I am not disputing that having an apps menu that can
be searched and is both flat and nested is useful. I'm not disputing that having
one panel is better than two, because it takes less precious desktop space. I'm
not disputing that having search in general is useful etc.
What I'm disputing is usefulness of the overview. It brings nothing to the table
- for anyone. Rationalisations for it as as funny as rationalisations against
the taskbar. Usually we are told that users would be too confused by seeing
workspaces/taskbar on the panel or some such.
Not true ... I recommend reading
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/#Activities_Overview
4:42 p.m.
drago01 <drago01 <at> gmail.com> writes:
Not true ... I recommend reading
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/#Activities_Overview
I read that a long, long time ago, of course. In fact, I have written a
constructive critique of Gnome 3 many months ago, based to a large degree on the
very document you pointed to. Critique still holds, unfortunately. You can
google it.
The existence of all those extensions that bring back sanity (apps menu in
normal view, workspaces in normal view, persistent dash for switching tasks in
normal view etc.) is the proof of the ultimate irony - the (supposedly) biggest
innovation of gnome-shell (the overview mode) is unfortunately a mistake.
--
Bojan
5:16 p.m.
On dom, 2011-11-06 at 22:42 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
The existence of all those extensions that bring back sanity (apps
menu in
normal view, workspaces in normal view, persistent dash for switching tasks in
normal view etc.) is the proof of the ultimate irony - the (supposedly) biggest
innovation of gnome-shell (the overview mode) is unfortunately a mistake.
Does that mean that the existence of terminal emulators for X11 is proof
of graphical user interfaces being a mistake?
Really, all those extensions proof is that *some* people prefer (parts
of) the old interface, and cared enough to implement it as extensions.
Good for them! But implying that users who don't use any of those
extensions are either insane or don't exist is a stretch at best, if not
plain rude.
Florian
5:25 p.m.
Florian Müllner <fmuellner <at> gnome.org> writes:
Rebuttal only here. No new material.
Does that mean that the existence of terminal emulators for X11 is
proof
of graphical user interfaces being a mistake?
Terminal and (I guess other) GUI apps do entirely _different_ things. Apps menu
in overview and apps menu in normal view do the _same_ thing.
Really, all those extensions proof is that *some* people prefer
(parts
of) the old interface, and cared enough to implement it as extensions.
Good for them!
It actually proves that some people were willing to put an effort into
_duplicating_ the functionality already present in overview, because they found
that going into overview involves _unnecessary_ steps.
But implying that users who don't use any of those
extensions are either insane or don't exist is a stretch at best, if not
plain rude.
I did not imply that users that use gnome-shell as is are insane. What I said
was that GUI behaviour that introduces many _unnecessary_ steps for _no_
_benefit_ is insane.
--
Bojan
8:10 p.m.
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 23:25 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
I did not imply that users that use gnome-shell as is are insane.
What I said
was that GUI behaviour that introduces many _unnecessary_ steps for _no_
_benefit_ is insane.
Did you even read my answer to you earlier where I said that I was much
more productive with Gnome 3 than I used to be with Gnome 2?
Gnome 3 didn't introduce many unnecessary steps for no benefit. It
brought a lot of sanity to my desktop. It offered me a way to use my
computer in a much more natural and efficient way.
Is it now possible that you simply agree that Gnome 3 is not for you and
that you move to something else, instead of complaining and being
insulting?
--
Mathieu
10:34 a.m.
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 22:42 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
drago01 <drago01 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Not true ... I recommend reading
> https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/#Activities_Overview
I read that a long, long time ago, of course. In fact, I have written a
constructive critique of Gnome 3 many months ago, based to a large degree on the
very document you pointed to. Critique still holds, unfortunately. You can
google it.
Reading all sorts of stuff or trying to but havcen't found yours yet
(don't like it neither, so wanted to see your thoughts on it too)
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"The best town on Earth!"
4:53 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
Mike Chambers <mike <at> miketc.net> writes:
> Reading all sorts of stuff or trying to but havcen't found yours yet
> (don't like it neither, so wanted to see your thoughts on it too)
If you google '"on gnome 3" bojan', it should come up in top 10.
Just point people to the link directly if you want them to read it
(should be easier for both sides).
5:15 p.m.
drago01 <drago01 <at> gmail.com> writes:
Just point people to the link directly if you want them to read it
(should be easier for both sides).
Spamming the list with links to my own site is not something I want to do. If
someone really wants to read that, they'll find it.
--
Bojan
5:09 p.m.
drago01 <drago01 <at> gmail.com> writes:
Not true ... I recommend reading
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/#Activities_Overview
Just one link, so you wouldn't say I'm plucking things out of thin air:
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ#Why_no_window_list_or_dock.3F
This explains... <sorry, was just chewing my gum there>... how users are being
told that "constant temptation to switch focus" is evil. Ergo, the wonderful
kitchen sink overview that does all that and more for them.
You know, I go around my place and my daughters and my wife do nothing all day
but click on those darn taskbar/dock buttons in Windows/OSX, switching tasks
aimlessly. Sometimes I have to give them a jolt, just to get them out of the
daze of task switching. If _only_ they had overview... :-)
Seriously for a second, I can also write anything I want in some design document
that rationalises whatever design choice I want to make. Doesn't make it good,
useful or sane in real life.
Anyhow, I think I've made my points known. Don't want to wake the list police,
so last post on this topic.
--
Bojan
5:14 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bojan Smojver <bojan(a)rexursive.com> wrote:
drago01 <drago01 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Not true ... I recommend reading
> https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/#Activities_Overview
Just one link, so you wouldn't say I'm plucking things out of thin air:
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ#Why_no_window_list_or_dock.3F
This explains... <sorry, was just chewing my gum there>... how users are being
told that "constant temptation to switch focus" is evil. Ergo, the wonderful
kitchen sink overview that does all that and more for them.
You know, I go around my place and my daughters and my wife do nothing all day
but click on those darn taskbar/dock buttons in Windows/OSX, switching tasks
aimlessly. Sometimes I have to give them a jolt, just to get them out of the
daze of task switching. If _only_ they had overview... :-)
Seriously for a second, I can also write anything I want in some design document
that rationalises whatever design choice I want to make. Doesn't make it good,
useful or sane in real life.
Anyhow, I think I've made my points known. Don't want to wake the list police,
so last post on this topic.
I didn't comment on whether your arguments are valid or not I simply
said that "confused users" was *not* the reason for the lack of
taskbar. distraction != confusion.
5:33 p.m.
drago01 <drago01 <at> gmail.com> writes:
Again, rebuttal only.
I didn't comment on whether your arguments are valid or not I
simply
said that "confused users" was *not* the reason for the lack of
taskbar. distraction != confusion.
Now we're splitting hairs, eh? A distracted user is not a confused user, that
seems to be your point.
Please, just give me the name of _one_ user that got _distracted_ by the
taskbar in Gnome (or any other OS, for that matter). The name of one user that
was tempted to switch tasks just because the taskbar/workspace switcher was
there. One.
Of course, this is a rhetorical question - no such user exists.
--
Bojan
8:25 p.m.
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 23:33 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Please, just give me the name of _one_ user that got _distracted_ by
the
taskbar in Gnome (or any other OS, for that matter).
Look at the value of the « From: » header of this email for a name of
such a user.
The name of one user that
was tempted to switch tasks just because the taskbar/workspace switcher was
there. One.
I wasn't tempted to switch task just because the switcher was there.
But certainly, I got very distracted every time something would happen
in another window and that button was blinking blue on the taskbar.
It surprised me every time, and I had to spend a short time (perhaps
less than a second?) wondering if I should go and see what it was, and
thanks to my incredibly poor focus, I needed a few seconds to get back
into whatever I was doing previously. To make my point clear: each
notification was costing me much more to get back into what I was doing
than to notice it.
Gnome 3 doesn't have those distractions and I'm incredibly grateful to
the developers. In fact, most of the time I turn off notifications in
the shell altogether so that I'm not distracted by uncontrollable
sources. And I can focus on my work, or relax without being interrupted,
and go see the message tray when I actually want to.
Oh, and I don't think I am a "Joe Average" or an "Aunt Tillie":
I'm a
Fedora package maintainer, Python developer, a release engineer for an
in-house Linux distribution at $dayjob, and I spend most of my time in a
terminal.
Hopefully that will clear the myth that Gnome 3 is not for power users /
developers.
--
Mathieu
9:24 p.m.
Mathieu Bridon <bochecha <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
[..snip..] and thanks to my incredibly poor focus [..snip..]
Oh, and I don't think I am a "Joe Average" or an
"Aunt Tillie": I'm a
Fedora package maintainer, Python developer, a release engineer for an
in-house Linux distribution at $dayjob, and I spend most of my time in a
terminal.
Hopefully that will clear the myth that Gnome 3 is not for power users /
developers.
If you have so incredibly poor focus, how do you do all these things? ;-)
I think you're being overly modest - you sound more like a very capable guy than
a person with poor focus to me. Gnome 2/3 notwithstanding.
In terms of various notifications, obviously, I have no idea what kind of things
you're logged into daily and what kind of apps you have open. In any event, I do
not see how this is in any way related to usefulness/uselessness of overview.
You should be able turn notification off with or without overview - that is not
in question. Ditto any kind of taskbar (although I do not see why you'd want
that - it is usually an app you've opened yourself that's asking for input). The
fact that some apps nudge the taskbar when they have a new message instead of
using notifications is just a bug.
Not one person that is happy with Gnome 3 has been able to explain to me why
overview is _required_ for any of these things to work. In the absence of that
and believe me, with all due respect, I do not see why I have to go through two
view switches and expose animation just to start an app.
--
Bojan
12:39 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 03:24 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Mathieu Bridon <bochecha <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
> [..snip..] and thanks to my incredibly poor focus [..snip..]
> Oh, and I don't think I am a "Joe Average" or an "Aunt
Tillie": I'm a
> Fedora package maintainer, Python developer, a release engineer for an
> in-house Linux distribution at $dayjob, and I spend most of my time in a
> terminal.
>
> Hopefully that will clear the myth that Gnome 3 is not for power users /
> developers.
If you have so incredibly poor focus, how do you do all these things? ;-)
Simple: I try very hard to do one at a time.
Of course I have windows opened all over the place between all of them,
but Gnome 3 allows me to avoid switching context as much as possible,
which is what costs me the most in terms of productivity.
Sure, I could avoid switching contexts in Gnome 2 as well, but that
would have required more discipline on my part. With Gnome 3, I don't
need more discipline, the OS does (mostly) the right thing. (it could be
perfected of course ;)
Not one person that is happy with Gnome 3 has been able to explain to
me why
overview is _required_ for any of these things to work.
It's not required, nothing ever is.
It's just an incredibly convenient thing to have:
- when I'm focused on doing something, I have the current window
(usually maximized, sometimes a couple of windows tiled together to
occupy the whole screen) and nothing else. Nothing will blink, move or
require my attention in any way
- when I **decide** to switch contexts (to run a new app, to search for
a contact, to manage my windows,...) I just go to the overview and
everything is there, providing me with an efficient access to all those
functions.
In other words, the overview allows me to have 2 isolated modes of
interacting with my computer, which adapts very well how my brain works.
Or as another example, when I want to start working on a new task, I can
just go to the overview, and start dragging and dropping icons
everywhere to run all the applications I'm going to need. And I can do
that on a new desktop, dynamically created just for this purpose, which
will be discarded once I have finished working on this task and close
all the associated windows.
In the absence of that
and believe me, with all due respect, I do not see why I have to go through two
view switches and expose animation just to start an app.
You don't have to: you can always use another DE.
There is no way one DE^wproduct of any kind will ever be adapted to
everyone. Why would you choose to impose yourself the pain of using a
product not adapted to you is beyond me.
"Doctor, when I do that, it hurts..."
"Well, then don't do that"
Unless you actually take pleasure in putting yourself through that
pain? :)
And if you really loved Gnome 2 so much, I'm sure the MATE developers
would love your help:
https://github.com/Perberos/Mate-Desktop-Environment#readme
--
Mathieu
5:06 p.m.
Mathieu Bridon <bochecha <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
And if you really loved Gnome 2 so much
If this is what think, then you really completely missed what I'm trying to say.
The main reason I'm using the fallback mode is the insanity of overview in
gnome-shell.
Don't worry - I'm sure someone will write an extension that will nuke the stupid
Activities button sooner or later.
--
Bojan
5:33 p.m.
Bojan Smojver <bojan <at> rexursive.com> writes:
Don't worry - I'm sure someone will write an extension that
will nuke the
stupid Activities button sooner or later.
I'm behind times:
http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html
Open source - it's a wonderful thing.
--
Bojan
9:40 a.m.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 09:46:41PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
enaut wrote:
> I am one of them and I went directly from the tilling-WM Xmonad to gnome
> 3! So you can't say it's only for absolute noobs :).
The fact that you were using a tiling WM first shows that you are much more
willing to adapt to unconventional designs than most other users. I, for
one, want my computer to work the way I learned and interiorized a computer
works, any "innovative" interface destroys my automatisms and confuses me.
http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110814after.gif
--CJD
12:46 p.m.
------- Original message -------
From: seth vidal
Install xfce. You'll be happy w/that.
Thanks for the tip.
Or maybe I'll just have to find time to (learn how to) hack the shell,
remove overview from it, bring back the taskbar and workspaces to normal
view and call it gnome-non-shell-shell. Or even non-gnome-shell-for-gnome.
:-)
--
Bojan
8:40 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 23:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
But based on what they've said in the past, I expect that once most
hardware that previously needed the fallback mode is covered, fallback
mode will die. AIUI, fallback mode isn't meant to be a GNOME
2-by-stealth for Shell refuseniks, it's purely an attempt to accommodate
hardware which doesn't support Shell.
That's pretty accurate, yes.
8:58 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 23:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> But based on what they've said in the past, I expect that once most
> hardware that previously needed the fallback mode is covered, fallback
> mode will die. AIUI, fallback mode isn't meant to be a GNOME
> 2-by-stealth for Shell refuseniks, it's purely an attempt to accommodate
> hardware which doesn't support Shell.
That's pretty accurate, yes.
One nice outcome is that we could end up with an optimized reference
s/w renderer (and kernel/user land stack) for all platforms. Which is
cool! :)
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
9:10 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 14:58:47 +0100,
Ilyes Gouta <ilyes.gouta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One nice outcome is that we could end up with an optimized reference
s/w renderer (and kernel/user land stack) for all platforms. Which is
cool! :)
The other graphics related improvement looking possible for F17 is complete
OpenGL 3.0 support (including GLSL 1.3) for mesa.
9:06 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 23:09:12 -0700,
Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 03:42 +0000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
But based on what they've said in the past, I expect that once most
hardware that previously needed the fallback mode is covered, fallback
mode will die. AIUI, fallback mode isn't meant to be a GNOME
2-by-stealth for Shell refuseniks, it's purely an attempt to accommodate
hardware which doesn't support Shell.
It does a pretty good job at providing a Gnome 2 look and feel. If it is low
cost to keep it working, it might be worth doing just for that.
8:37 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com> wrote:
As of tomorrow's rawhide [1], gnome-session will no longer treat
llvmpipe as an unsupported driver. This means gnome-shell will run even
on hardware without a native 3D driver, including virt guests.
There are probably bugs! I've done some quick tests on the hardware I
have handy and in kvm, and things do appear to work.
Hi Ajax!
What's the plan for rather old, limited hardware? Have you personally
got XO-1, XO-1.5 units to test? We'll be testing it (with some
trepidation) at OLPC, but it's always better if you can see it in all
its glory on your own.
We also have some hw in the pipeline that can handle OpenGLES; and
that's likely to be increasingly the case for ARM laptops and
tablets. AFAIK, the current stack can't use OpenGLES, correct?
cheers,
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
8:45 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:37 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
What's the plan for rather old, limited hardware? Have you
personally
got XO-1, XO-1.5 units to test? We'll be testing it (with some
trepidation) at OLPC, but it's always better if you can see it in all
its glory on your own.
I have one or two around. I haven't successfully run anything on them
in ages, but I guess I can always try again.
We also have some hw in the pipeline that can handle OpenGLES; and
that's likely to be increasingly the case for ARM laptops and
tablets. AFAIK, the current stack can't use OpenGLES, correct?
For now let's say yes, but that's more like implementation detail than
fundamental property. Clutter'd be perfectly happy atop a GLES
renderer, we just don't have that wired up.
- ajax
8:55 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:37 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> What's the plan for rather old, limited hardware? Have you personally
> got XO-1, XO-1.5 units to test? We'll be testing it (with some
> trepidation) at OLPC, but it's always better if you can see it in all
> its glory on your own.
I have one or two around. I haven't successfully run anything on them
in ages, but I guess I can always try again.
Details of rawhide builds for them here[1], the XO-1 build isn't
tested but the XO 1.5 one works fine, I'll be testing further and
likely the next build I do I'll add all the components to test the
llvmpipe feature on them.
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/olpc/2011-November/003005.html
Peter
> We also have some hw in the pipeline that can handle OpenGLES;
and
> that's likely to be increasingly the case for ARM laptops and
> tablets. AFAIK, the current stack can't use OpenGLES, correct?
For now let's say yes, but that's more like implementation detail than
fundamental property. Clutter'd be perfectly happy atop a GLES
renderer, we just don't have that wired up.
- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
9:11 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Details of rawhide builds for them here[1], the XO-1 build isn't
tested but the XO 1.5 one works fine, I'll be testing further and
likely the next build I do I'll add all the components to test the
llvmpipe feature on them.
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/olpc/2011-November/003005.html
Yep -- Peter put together a rawhide build last night. If you need a
hand to run through the installation steps,
In case you're a bit rusty on the installation steps
- XO-1.5: you need the .zd or .zd4 file. Put it on a FAT formatted
USB and from OFW's "ok" prompt run "fs-update u:\osNN.zd4"
- XO-1: you need the .onu and .uim files, and the OFW command to
flash is: update-nand u:\osNN.onu
Once you're on that image, you can probably yum update on rawhide.
> For now let's say yes, but that's more like
implementation detail than
> fundamental property. Clutter'd be perfectly happy atop a GLES
> renderer, we just don't have that wired up.
Ok -- that doesn't sound so terrible. Are there concrete plans to wire it up?
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
11 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:11 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>> For now let's say yes, but that's more like
implementation detail than
>> fundamental property. Clutter'd be perfectly happy atop a GLES
>> renderer, we just don't have that wired up.
Ok -- that doesn't sound so terrible. Are there concrete plans to wire it up?
I guess? It sort of depends what the support story for those chips
looks like: who provides the GLES and EGL libraries, what their ABI
looks like, whether it's feasible to compile against Mesa's
implementation but use another at runtime...
None of which has a real answer just yet, I don't think.
- ajax
3:05 p.m.
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:55 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Details of rawhide builds for them here[1], the XO-1 build isn't
tested but the XO 1.5 one works fine, I'll be testing further and
likely the next build I do I'll add all the components to test the
llvmpipe feature on them.
Don't freak out if it doesn't seem like it works. Somehow between F16
and rawhide we're managing to change LLVM's behaviour for allocating
memory in the JIT, such that selinux puts the smack down.
I'm working on it, but in the meantime, enforcing=0 if you want to try
it.
- ajax
3:23 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:55 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Details of rawhide builds for them here[1], the XO-1 build isn't
> tested but the XO 1.5 one works fine, I'll be testing further and
> likely the next build I do I'll add all the components to test the
> llvmpipe feature on them.
Don't freak out if it doesn't seem like it works. Somehow between F16
and rawhide we're managing to change LLVM's behaviour for allocating
memory in the JIT, such that selinux puts the smack down.
I'm working on it, but in the meantime, enforcing=0 if you want to try
it.
We don't have selinux enabled on the XO builds but it still doesn't
work on the Via based XO-1.5. I have logs and I'm going to post a bug
report for it when I get a sec.
Peter
6:44 p.m.
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 16:05 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:55 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Details of rawhide builds for them here[1], the XO-1 build isn't
> tested but the XO 1.5 one works fine, I'll be testing further and
> likely the next build I do I'll add all the components to test the
> llvmpipe feature on them.
Don't freak out if it doesn't seem like it works. Somehow between F16
and rawhide we're managing to change LLVM's behaviour for allocating
memory in the JIT, such that selinux puts the smack down.
I'm working on it, but in the meantime, enforcing=0 if you want to try
it.
It seems like a similar bug has come up before in clamav:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573191
if that's any help to you. Just saw this in my VM test. With selinux, no
worky (aww...) but with selinux disabled, worky (yayyy!). Bit jerky but
definitely usable, with qxl/SPICE on a fairly powerful F16 host. very
nice stuff!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
9:48 p.m.
Adam Williamson wrote:
It seems like a similar bug has come up before in clamav:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573191
This issue affects many JITs. The WebKit JIT is affected too. Actually, the
execmem boolean has been enabled by default for a while, did it get disabled
again in F17? We had been disabling the QtWebKit JIT, but we reenabled it
when we found out execmem got enabled by default. More and more things in
Fedora use JITs (see also Orc etc.), and those JITs all tend to require
execmem, with upstreams showing little to no interest in changing them not
to. (There is a way, but 1. it's complicated and 2. it hurts performance.)
Kevin Kofler
12:11 a.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 04:48 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seems like a similar bug has come up before in clamav:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573191
This issue affects many JITs. The WebKit JIT is affected too. Actually, the
execmem boolean has been enabled by default for a while, did it get disabled
again in F17?
I believe the bugs come and go in cycles because what happens is the
SELinux team disables the boolean up till Beta or so, to try and
encourage people to fix their code, then disable it so the releases
aren't too broken.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
8:49 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/2011 01:11 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 04:48 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It seems like a similar bug has come up before in clamav:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573191
>
> This issue affects many JITs. The WebKit JIT is affected too.
> Actually, the execmem boolean has been enabled by default for a
> while, did it get disabled again in F17?
I believe the bugs come and go in cycles because what happens is
the SELinux team disables the boolean up till Beta or so, to try
and encourage people to fix their code, then disable it so the
releases aren't too broken.
Yes that is the goal...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk65QYIACgkQrlYvE4MpobNLpgCgmR6M8JHE+0cQkoFjAH+sKekM
XZ4AoKcc9+GsdGwe4uzXje+Wcms2zcGt
=PWAl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:29 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/07/2011 10:48 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seems like a similar bug has come up before in clamav:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573191
This issue affects many JITs. The WebKit JIT is affected too.
Actually, the execmem boolean has been enabled by default for a
while, did it get disabled again in F17? We had been disabling the
QtWebKit JIT, but we reenabled it when we found out execmem got
enabled by default. More and more things in Fedora use JITs (see
also Orc etc.), and those JITs all tend to require execmem, with
upstreams showing little to no interest in changing them not to.
(There is a way, but 1. it's complicated and 2. it hurts
performance.)
Kevin Kofler
Any time I go into a rawhide I enable the tightest controls. Then
relax them as we get closer to Beta. I am thinking of dropping
execmem protection from user apps altogether as I see almost all
applications that a user relies on needing execmem. The attached
regular expressions match all of the executables that we are currently
marking as needing execmem protection.
/usr/(.*/)?bin/java.*
/opt/(.*/)?bin/java[^/]*
/usr/lib(.*/)?bin/java[^/]*
/opt/ibm(/.*)?/eclipse/plugins(/.*)?
/opt/real/(.*/)?realplay\.bin
/opt/Adobe.*AIR/.*/Resources/Adobe.AIR.Updater
/opt/Adobe.*AIR/.*/Resources/Adobe.AIR.Application
/opt/matlab.*/bin.*/MATLAB.*
/opt/MATLAB.*/bin.*/MATLAB.*
/usr/matlab.*/bin.*/MATLAB.*
/usr/Aptana[^/]*/AptanaStudio
/usr/bin/mono.*
/usr/lib/ghc-[^/]+/ghc.*
/opt/ibm/java.*/(bin|javaws)(/.*)?
/usr/sbin/VBox.*
/usr/lib/opera(/.*)?/opera
/usr/lib/opera(/.*)?/works
/usr/lib/gimp/[^/]+/plug-ins/help-browser
/usr/bin/haddock.*
/usr/bin/octave-[^/]*
/usr/libexec/gcc(/.*)?/gnat1
/usr/libexec/ghc-[^/]+/.*bin
/usr/libexec/ghc-[^/]+/ghc.*
/usr/java/eclipse[^/]*/eclipse
/usr/lib/jvm/java(.*/)bin(/.*)?
/opt/local/matlab.*/bin.*/MATLAB.*
/opt/local/MATLAB.*/bin.*/MATLAB.*
/usr/local/matlab.*/bin.*/MATLAB.*
/usr/lib/wingide-[^/]+/bin/PyCore/python
/usr/lib/erlang/erts-[^/]+/bin/beam.smp
/usr/lib/thunderbird-[^/]+/thunderbird-bin
/usr/local/Wolfram/Mathematica(/.*)?MathKernel
/opt/ibm/lotus/Symphony/framework/rcp/eclipse/plugins(/.*)?
/usr/bin/gij
/usr/bin/sbcl
/usr/bin/darcs
/usr/bin/skype
/usr/bin/frysk
/usr/bin/grmic
/usr/bin/dosbox
/usr/bin/runghc
/usr/bin/gnatls
/usr/bin/fastjar
/usr/bin/hasktags
/usr/bin/valgrind
/usr/bin/gkeytool
/usr/bin/gnatbind
/usr/bin/gnatmake
/usr/bin/aticonfig
/usr/bin/runhaskell
/usr/bin/gcj-dbtool
/usr/bin/gjarsigner
/usr/bin/jv-convert
/usr/lib/R/bin/exec/R
/usr/bin/grmiregistry
/usr/bin/gappletviewer
/usr/bin/plasma-desktop
/usr/lib/eclipse/eclipse
/usr/sbin/vboxadd-service
/opt/google/chrome/chrome
/usr/lib/ia32el/ia32x_loader
/usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox
/opt/likewise/bin/domainjoin-cli
/opt/google/chrome/google-chrome
/opt/real/RealPlayer/realplay\.bin
/usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay\.bin
/opt/secondlife-install/bin/SLPlugin
/opt/Komodo-Edit-5/lib/mozilla/komodo-bin
/usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser
/opt/Adobe/Reader9/Reader/intellinux/bin/acroread
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk65Ls0ACgkQrlYvE4MpobPdBACgqyx6uG2FDQHAtzLJfXnd5oml
d24An1kj4sVSieS9HWoZ9lTl+M3hL07y
=yXOA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9:27 a.m.
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
Any time I go into a rawhide I enable the tightest controls. Then
relax them as we get closer to Beta. I am thinking of dropping
execmem protection from user apps altogether as I see almost all
applications that a user relies on needing execmem. The attached
regular expressions match all of the executables that we are currently
marking as needing execmem protection.
Anything that directly or indirectly uses QtWebKit or QtScript also requires
execmem, unless we disable the JavaScript JIT, which we used to do, but got
users complaining about the slowness.
See also:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35154
which is being ignored entirely by upstream.
Kevin Kofler
9:32 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:27, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Anything that directly or indirectly uses QtWebKit or QtScript also
requires
execmem, unless we disable the JavaScript JIT, which we used to do, but got
users complaining about the slowness.
See also:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35154
which is being ignored entirely by upstream.
I don't know if you noticed but that bug shows it isn't and never has
been assigned to anybody so it is not entirely impossible nobody has
actually seen it...
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary
and those who don't...
3:14 p.m.
John5342 wrote:
I don't know if you noticed but that bug shows it isn't and
never has
been assigned to anybody so it is not entirely impossible nobody has
actually seen it...
Well, that's a failure of upstream's process then. Somebody has to look at
incoming bug reports, you cannot treat your bug tracker as /dev/null.
Kevin Kofler
4602
days inactive
4608
days old
90 comments
34 participants
participants (34)
-
Adam Jackson -
Adam Williamson -
Bojan Smojver -
Bruno Wolff III -
Casey Dahlin -
Daniel J Walsh -
Denys Vlasenko -
drago01 -
enaut -
Florian Müllner -
Frederic Muller -
Ian Malone -
Ilyes Gouta -
Jef Spaleta -
John5342 -
Kaleb S. KEITHLEY -
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Martin Langhoff -
Matej Cepl -
Mathieu Bridon -
Matthew Garrett -
Matthias Clasen -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike Chambers -
Nils Philippsen -
Orion Poplawski -
Pete Zaitcev -
Peter Robinson -
Pádraig Brady -
Reindl Harald -
Richard Shaw -
Seth Vidal -
Tomas Mraz