I thought you guys might get a chuckle from this,
My wife just got a shiny new HP laptop with Windows 7 installed. She has never used Windows before, having mainly used Gnome on Fedora boxes. After a week of struggling, she just asked me to wipe Windows and install Fedora so she can get some work done without fighting the desktop. This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
I guess it depends on what you're familiar with. I personally thought W7 looked very polished. I suspect it could probably be tweaked to work like Gnome, but why bother.
Regards,
John
On 15.03.2011, john wendel wrote:
After a week of struggling, she just asked me to wipe Windows and install Fedora so she can get some work done without fighting the desktop. This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
Well, this could have been me :-) And yes, she's right.
Thanks for sharing!
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:17 AM, john wendel jwendel10@comcast.net wrote:
This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
Google is going down the same path, with its Chrome browser and the "user is a moron and doesn´t need too many buttons or to easily tweak how things work" dogma.
Not to mention the ditching of CUA that was an improvement that took decades...
http://www.techeye.net/software/software-gui-design-going-to-hell-in-a-baske... FC
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
Just wait till everyone sees gnome 3 :-).
Oh, no, More Lemmings! ;)
FC
On 03/18/2011 07:46 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:10:16 -0300 Fernando Cassia wrote:
This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
Google is going down the same path
Just wait till everyone sees gnome 3 :-).
Uh.. yeah. Just did for the first time. It's pretty, I'll give it that. Of course if I wanted a MAC, I'd buy one.
Finally got out of it and into the "fallback" mode, and find I still can't use that as it's been gutted. I can't even move the silly gnome-panel to the bottom of the screen, or move items around to my liking. I may have to skip F15, which saddens me.
Please Include all of the F14 version/branch of Gnome as the Fallback mode.
On 19/03/11 05:21, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
I may have to skip F15, which saddens me.
Why? If Gnome 3 is in F 15, it's going to be in 16 as well. Just move to a different desktop, like XFCE.
I can see the logic in that, but it's a shame. If everyone who wants a bit of user interface stability jumps ship there will be no brakes on the Gnome developers at all: they'll just carry on deleting user- configurability and adding kewl new features. The trouble is, anyone who installs Fedora or uses the live DVD gets whatever is the default, but an experienced Fedora user like me will have no idea how to use the thing... ;-)
Andrew.
On 03/21/2011 11:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 19/03/11 05:21, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
I may have to skip F15, which saddens me.
Why? If Gnome 3 is in F 15, it's going to be in 16 as well. Just move to a different desktop, like XFCE.
... or a different distro, which is equipped with DEs which better match an individual's demands.
I can see the logic in that, but it's a shame. If everyone who wants a bit of user interface stability jumps ship there will be no brakes on the Gnome developers at all: they'll just carry on deleting user- configurability and adding kewl new features.
Isn't this what the people who are promoting Gnome 3 in Fedora intend?
The trouble is, anyone who installs Fedora or uses the live DVD gets whatever is the default, but an experienced Fedora user like me will have no idea how to use the thing... ;-)
Isn't it obious? People like you (and me) will have to go through a learning curve, which either ends up in total satisfaction, an arrangement with or in a divorce from Gnome3 and/or Fedora.
I for one will likely stay with F14 on my "productive systems", will start to experiment with other DE's on F15 and with other distributions on experimental installations. Momentarily, I have no idea were this will lead me to or, on a wider scope, which impact Gnome 3 in F15 will have on Fedora in general.
Ralf
On 3/21/11, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/21/2011 11:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 19/03/11 05:21, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
I may have to skip F15, which saddens me.
Why? If Gnome 3 is in F 15, it's going to be in 16 as well. Just move to a different desktop, like XFCE.
... or a different distro, which is equipped with DEs which better match an individual's demands.
This is certainly an option. With Linux we have that ability. Windows users don't.
I can see the logic in that, but it's a shame. If everyone who wants a bit of user interface stability jumps ship there will be no brakes on the Gnome developers at all: they'll just carry on deleting user- configurability and adding kewl new features.
Isn't this what the people who are promoting Gnome 3 in Fedora intend?
I don't think that is the intent. I don't think this is the intent of the Gnome3 developers either. However, as Linux moves from a niche to prominenance we are going to pick up the ID10Ts that will click on a button just to see what happens and then cry when their Gnome installation is broken and cannot follow obviously simple instructions. Then they go out and trash Linux. Never mind they brought this upon themselves, Linux sucks and that is their mantra. Yes, those of us that know better will have to suffer.
The trouble is, anyone who installs Fedora or uses the live DVD gets whatever is the default, but an experienced Fedora user like me will have no idea how to use the thing... ;-)
Isn't it obious? People like you (and me) will have to go through a learning curve, which either ends up in total satisfaction, an arrangement with or in a divorce from Gnome3 and/or Fedora.
I for one will likely stay with F14 on my "productive systems", will start to experiment with other DE's on F15 and with other distributions on experimental installations. Momentarily, I have no idea were this will lead me to or, on a wider scope, which impact Gnome 3 in F15 will have on Fedora in general.
Hopefully, Gnome3 will bring more folks into the light and see Windows for the brokenness it is.
James McKenzie
"James" == James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com writes:
James> Hopefully, Gnome3 will bring more folks into the light and James> see Windows for the brokenness it is.
Not something I hope for. Then we will get the full attention of the virus writers.
On 3/21/11, Colin Paul Adams colin@colina.demon.co.uk wrote:
"James" == James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com writes:
James> Hopefully, Gnome3 will bring more folks into the light and James> see Windows for the brokenness it is.Not something I hope for. Then we will get the full attention of the virus writers.
If you had not been watching, they are already here. However, we are not a major target, but anyone using Linux should be employing best security practices and most Windows users don't and probably will not when they switch.
James McKenzie
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, James McKenzie wrote:
I don't think that is the intent. I don't think this is the intent of the Gnome3 developers either. However, as Linux moves from a niche to prominenance we are going to pick up the ID10Ts that will click on a button just to see what happens and then cry when their Gnome installation is broken and cannot follow obviously simple instructions. Then they go out and trash Linux. Never mind they brought this upon themselves, Linux sucks and that is their mantra. Yes, those of us that know better will have to suffer.
That is a reason for carefully choosing defaults. It might even be a reason for making the configuration tools command line-only. Perhaps a command line tool for enabling configuration: sudo IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
On 03/21/2011 08:34 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
Perhaps a command line tool for enabling configuration: sudo IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
I'd like to see the response to that be:'
"You lie; you used sudo."
If you're a proper Linux user on your own box, you use this:
su -c IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
On 3/21/11, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/21/2011 08:34 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
Perhaps a command line tool for enabling configuration: sudo IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
I'd like to see the response to that be:'
"You lie; you used sudo."
If you're a proper Linux user on your own box, you use this:
su -c IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
sudo, used by sysadmins who KNOW their users will be abusive.
su - used by sysadmins who checked out their user's credentials and found out they know more about Linux then they do.
Either way, I prefer to give users sudo as it is restrictive and I know what they can/cannot do and how much damge I'll have to fix when they break things.
James McKenzie
On 03/21/2011 11:28 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
Either way, I prefer to give users sudo as it is restrictive and I know what they can/cannot do and how much damge I'll have to fix when they break things.
My point is, if it's your box and you're the only user, you know the root password and there's no excuse for using sudo. Using sudo under those circumstances is, IMAO one of the hallmarks of the luser. Please note that I'm a long-term member of the Scary Devil Monastery, and this attitude is typical of a monk. If you don't know what that last sentence meant, be glad.
On 3/21/11, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/21/2011 11:28 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
Either way, I prefer to give users sudo as it is restrictive and I know what they can/cannot do and how much damge I'll have to fix when they break things.
My point is, if it's your box and you're the only user, you know the root password and there's no excuse for using sudo.
If it's yours, enjoy. If it is not, as it is where I work, then I'm stuck with sudo.
Using sudo under those circumstances is, IMAO one of the hallmarks of the luser. Please note that I'm a long-term member of the Scary Devil Monastery, and this attitude is typical of a monk. If you don't know what that last sentence meant, be glad.
I do and I'm not upset that you are a Monk. I think I've graduated to Priest with all of the studying in the 'Bible of Scariness and How Users can Muck Up Their Systems' even if it is Linux/UNIX.
You are so correct. Why use sudo if it is your system? You shouldn't. I used su - until I had root taken away from me (and I gave it up because that team grew and I did not like the stop by my work area asking "What are you up to?" twice a day.) Giving users only that which they need is key to the principle of Least Privilege as well (if you know what I'm talking about, you may be more than a Monk. :) )
Anyway, we should move this to the other thread and carry on. Leave this to the Gnome3/KDE4/Windows7/Mac Aqua discussion.
James McKenzie
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On 03/21/2011 11:48 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
If it's yours, enjoy. If it is not, as it is where I work, then I'm stuck with sudo.
That's why I was so specific. When I first started doing tech support for an ISP, back in '96, we had telnet access to one server to make various database queries for callers. Instead of giving us direct access to the databases, we had shell scripts that used sudo. I could always tell when they'd rebooted the server because sudo would give me that standard lecture. IMO, that's what sudo was designed for, giving users limited access to specific commands that they need to do their job. Using it on your home box for root access is, IMAO, a bad habit that I'm not going to eliminate, although I can, and do object to people spreading it.
On 03/21/2011 11:51 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:27 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote:
My point is, if it's your box and you're the only user, you know the root password and there's no excuse for using sudo.
Sure there is, if you have configured sudo for your user so it doesn't ask for a password.
And that, my friends, is good grounds for using my biggest LART. Now, where's that desktop shortcut to the Orbital Anvil Delivery System...
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
My point is, if it's your box and you're the only user, you know the root password and there's no excuse for using sudo. Using sudo under those circumstances is, IMAO one of the hallmarks of the luser.
If I may ask, what is wrong with sudo? Specially when configured with PASSWD?
On 03/21/2011 12:54 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
If I may ask, what is wrong with sudo? Specially when configured with PASSWD?
If you have the root password, it's the wrong tool for the job. It's designed, AIUI, for people who *don't have* the root password to have *limited access* to specific root commands. It can also be used (as I described in a different message) to allow people *limited access* to programs that they'd not normally be able to run. If you have the password, there's no reason that I can see to pretend you don't. In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*
On 03/21/2011 01:53 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:19:21 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote:
In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*
Sure you can:
tom ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL
To do that you have to modify the sudo user's file. (don't remember the exact name) Don't you need root access (i.e. the password) to do that?
2011-03-21 22:06, Joe Zeff skrev:
On 03/21/2011 01:53 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:19:21 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote:
In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*
Sure you can:
tom ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL
To do that you have to modify the sudo user's file. (don't remember the exact name) Don't you need root access (i.e. the password) to do that?
Read the man page "man sudo". And yes you need to be superuser (root) to change /etc/sudoers. You must do it with visudo, see "man visudo".
On Monday, March 21, 2011, Jon Ingason wrote:
Read the man page "man sudo". And yes you need to be superuser (root) to change /etc/sudoers. You must do it with visudo, see "man visudo".
I read it and ignored it - the few times I've done it, I've edited sudoers with a text editor started from root - always worked fine...does it make me a moron --------------->
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:06:26 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote:
To do that you have to modify the sudo user's file. (don't remember the exact name) Don't you need root access (i.e. the password) to do that?
Yea, I need the password once when I'm installing, and once when I'm modifying /etc/sudoers, then I don't need it again.
On 03/21/2011 02:19 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/21/2011 12:54 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
If I may ask, what is wrong with sudo? Specially when configured with PASSWD?
If you have the root password, it's the wrong tool for the job. It's designed, AIUI, for people who *don't have* the root password to have *limited access* to specific root commands. It can also be used (as I described in a different message) to allow people *limited access* to programs that they'd not normally be able to run. If you have the password, there's no reason that I can see to pretend you don't. In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*
Gah! The old man is forced to reply to such ...
First of all, after nearly 30 years of UNIX and then Linux administration, I would not hire you into my group with a belief such as that.
There is an old saying: 'The palest ink is better than the best of memories.'
The main advantage, and one of the main reasons for sudo, is logging.
Maybe you can remember everything you typed as root a year ago, but I certainly cannot. The shell history of root is not sufficient. Process accounting is not sufficient.
If you examine the sudo logs you will find not only date and time stamps, but much of the environment settings of how the command was executed. Failure to make this available to yourself during a diagnostic session is unwise.
Spend some time in /var/log/secure and get back to us about how logging in as root is superior.
I will take exception only to those times when I MUST chain several commands together, and each time that happens I evaluate whether to script it instead. So should you.
Good Luck!
On 03/21/2011 02:54 PM, Phil Meyer wrote:
First of all, after nearly 30 years of UNIX and then Linux administration, I would not hire you into my group with a belief such as that.
I should have been more clear. I was thinking in terms of your own computer, or one that you own. Two friends of mine have accounts on this machine and ssh access, so they can do such interesting things as ping/traceroute through different backbone segments to help with testing. Neither one has (or has asked for) sudo access, nor needs it. The only reason they might is the fact that sometimes traceroute doesn't get responses from each router unless you use "traceroute -I" and that normally needs elevated privileges. After careful thought and deciding that I couldn't see a downside to it, I used chmod to set the suid bit on the binary.
I'd like to assure you, btw, that if I were working as a Linux sysadmin, I'd follow whatever procedures were in place, and if that includes using sudo instead of su, I'd have no problems with it because that'd simply be doing things the way I was being paid to do them.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
If you have the root password, it's the wrong tool for the job. It's designed, AIUI, for people who *don't have* the root password to have *limited access* to specific root commands. It can also be used (as I described in a different message) to allow people *limited access* to programs that they'd not normally be able to run. If you have the password, there's no reason that I can see to pretend you don't. In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*
I don't follow your logic, how is using sudo with password improper. Every time a user uses 'sudo <cmd>' _only_ that command is executed as root. All other commands are executed as the regular user. Whereas in a proper root shell aren't you prone to "grave mistakes" due to silly things like typos, "forgot where I am in the directory tree" like errors? To add to this using sudo also disables all aliases in /root/.bashrc so you are protected from laziness inspired aliases like 'alias rm=rm -f'?
Aren't we after all humans and prone to error? Shouldn't elevating privileges on a per command basis be a more reasonable practice even though you know the root password?
On 03/21/2011 04:23 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
Whereas in a proper root shell aren't you prone to "grave mistakes" due to silly things like typos, "forgot where I am in the directory tree" like errors?
First, I only use su - if and *only* if I have to, to avoid those embarrassing "where was I?" moments. (I also use pwd if I'm not completely sure.) Second, before I do anything as root, I read over the command several times to be sure. And, before deleting *anything* as root, I use ls to see exactly what I'm going to delete and I never delete anything *as root* without good reason. IOW, I'm very careful. I won't say that I can't make mistakes, but I can say that after using Linux as a secondary OS starting in about '98 and as my only OS since Fedora 9 I've learned how to avoid almost all of them. I tend to regard such things as simple, common prudence and expect the same from most of the people on this list.
As I've been writing this, something interesting has occurred to me: by the time I stopped doing tech support for an ISP (Our call center was closed and the entire support crew was laid off.) I had been "on the phones" longer than anybody else there. I found myself, more and more, finding things obvious that nobody else understood or knew, simply because none of the other techs had anywhere near my experience. Considering how long I've been using Linux, this may well be simply another case of my not realizing how different my experience level is compared to the rest of the list.
On 21 March 2011 23:46, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/21/2011 04:23 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
Whereas in a proper root shell aren't you prone to "grave mistakes" due to silly things like typos, "forgot where I am in the directory tree" like errors?
First, I only use su - if and *only* if I have to, to avoid those embarrassing "where was I?" moments. (I also use pwd if I'm not completely sure.) Second, before I do anything as root, I read over the command several times to be sure. And, before deleting *anything* as root, I use ls to see exactly what I'm going to delete and I never delete anything *as root* without good reason.
I routinely su immediately after logging into a server, because very little of what I do (I work Tech Support for a hosting company) can be done without root access. However I am also very very careful. I never delete anything, because I simply move it out of the way instead. I will always create a backup before changing a file and I never do *anything* without a backout plan. To take an example, today I moved 86000 messages in a Maildir into separate subfolders by date. That took me about 5 minutes, but I spent 15 minutes beforehand creating the tarball of the entire maildir as a backup before I made any changes.
In summary, root access isn't the problem - it makes no difference if I make that mistake on the rare occasion I do su or if I su routinely and make the mistake once - it's the mistake that is the problem and hence being careful and having backups is the best defence.
IOW, I'm very careful. I won't say that I can't make mistakes, but I can say that after using Linux as a secondary OS starting in about '98 and as my only OS since Fedora 9 I've learned how to avoid almost all of them. I tend to regard such things as simple, common prudence and expect the same from most of the people on this list.
I agree with you. I see so many incidents where my Customers have done an "rm -f . /" instead of "rm -rf ./" - simple checking your typing before hitting that mysterious enter key saves you from making the rookie mistakes. I have the experience to avoid them now, because this is what I do day in, day out, but I sympathise with people who make these errors simply because they lack my experience.
I found myself, more and more, finding things obvious that nobody else understood or knew, simply because none of the other techs had anywhere near my experience. Considering how long I've been using Linux, this may well be simply another case of my not realizing how different my experience level is compared to the rest of the list.
This is the same in any field. You need to routinely document your knowledge, so that in the inevitable "man under a car" incident (this actually happened to a co-worker), the knowledge survives. I've started documenting (after the fact) any helpful tips I pass on to a co-worker, simply because next time someone asks, I can point to that central resource instead of writing a full response. In time. searching that knowledgebase becomes first-nature for the newbies and I get less questions - so it has a selfish side ;o)
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 16:46 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: ...
As I've been writing this, something interesting has occurred to me: by the time I stopped doing tech support for an ISP (Our call center was closed and the entire support crew was laid off.) I had been "on the phones" longer than anybody else there. I found myself, more and more, finding things obvious that nobody else understood or knew, simply because none of the other techs had anywhere near my experience. Considering how long I've been using Linux, this may well be simply another case of my not realizing how different my experience level is compared to the rest of the list.
...And for those of us on the list who have been running Linux pretty much exclusively since Red Hat Linux 4 and earlier (and who use sudo properly):
def. Hubris (World English Dictionary)
hubris or hybris ('hju:bris) -n 1. pride or arrogance 2. (in Greek tragedy) an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately causing the transgressor's ruin
On 22 March 2011 00:07, Christopher A. Williams chriswfedora@cawllc.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 16:46 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: ...
As I've been writing this, something interesting has occurred to me: by the time I stopped doing tech support for an ISP (Our call center was closed and the entire support crew was laid off.) I had been "on the phones" longer than anybody else there. I found myself, more and more, finding things obvious that nobody else understood or knew, simply because none of the other techs had anywhere near my experience. Considering how long I've been using Linux, this may well be simply another case of my not realizing how different my experience level is compared to the rest of the list.
...And for those of us on the list who have been running Linux pretty much exclusively since Red Hat Linux 4 and earlier (and who use sudo properly):
sudo won't save you - "sudo rm -rf . /" is just as bad.
The only thing sudo does give you is accountability - which is precious little use when someone has just deleted some important data. Firing them after the event really doesn't hold as much satisfaction as not deleting that data in the first place.
On 2011/03/21 17:07, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 16:46 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: ...
As I've been writing this, something interesting has occurred to me: by the time I stopped doing tech support for an ISP (Our call center was closed and the entire support crew was laid off.) I had been "on the phones" longer than anybody else there. I found myself, more and more, finding things obvious that nobody else understood or knew, simply because none of the other techs had anywhere near my experience. Considering how long I've been using Linux, this may well be simply another case of my not realizing how different my experience level is compared to the rest of the list.
...And for those of us on the list who have been running Linux pretty much exclusively since Red Hat Linux 4 and earlier (and who use sudo properly):
def. Hubris (World English Dictionary)
hubris or hybris ('hju:bris) -n
- pride or arrogance
- (in Greek tragedy) an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately
causing the transgressor's ruin
By nature the more "power" you give or Joe thinks he has the more careful he is. I've seen that in action over many years. He's a good fellow. (And he has been around computers long enough to have made all the potentially disastrous errors and learned from them where his caution has slipped.)
Personally I use sudo for one liners like running "mtr" or restarting a mail daemon. Otherwise I use "su -l" on one shell screen and do all the other preparatory work on user screens. So far I've managed to avoid "rm -rf / etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/foobar" sort of errors. I consider myself lucky. I also consider taking backups before performing surgery. (I wish I could do that with this meat I am wearing. {^_-})
{^_^}
Joe Zeff:
I found myself, more and more, finding things obvious that nobody else understood or knew, simply because none of the other techs had anywhere near my experience.
Christopher A. Williams:
...And for those of us on the list who have been running Linux pretty much exclusively since Red Hat Linux 4 and earlier (and who use sudo properly):
def. Hubris (World English Dictionary)
hubris or hybris ('hju:bris) -n
- pride or arrogance
- (in Greek tragedy) an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately
causing the transgressor's ruin
Now was this pride before the fall, or after?
(Refer to the datestamps of the other big thread, today.)
;-)
Well, Joe, I don't know about Fedora 14 but I do know about earlier Fedoras and Scientific Linux 6 which I happen to have up on a virtual machine. All of them require the USER's password for sudo, not the root password. You should be able to test that yourself fairly easily.
(I made that same mistake, publicly, a few years ago around here. When you do that the lesson tends to stick around. And of course, we NEVER use the same password for root as for our own account, do we?)
{o.o}
On 2011/03/21 13:19, Joe Zeff wrote:
In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*
On 2011/03/21 20:31, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/21/2011 05:42 PM, jdow wrote:
All of them require the USER's password for sudo, not the root password.
Of course they do; that's how sudo works.
You said: "In fact, in Fedora, you can't even set sudo up so that you can use it without using the *root password!*"
That read as if you figured sudo used the root password.
Now, you do need to use the root password at least once in order to edit the sudo file. However, "you" do not need to be the one to make that setting for a machine. Somebody needs it, once. From that point on you can cheat with sudo depending on how well locked down it is.
You'd have been better off phrasing it differently.
"In fact, in Fedora, you must use the root password at least once before you can use sudo." That covers it or a personal machine quite nicely.
(My partner screams at me over making those kinds of ambiguous statements. I think the MCP has invaded his brain, sometimes, rather than him being the author of the fool thing for some versions.)
{^_-}
On 03/22/2011 12:03 AM, jdow wrote:
Now, you do need to use the root password at least once in order to edit the sudo file. However, "you" do not need to be the one to make that setting for a machine. Somebody needs it, once. From that point on you can cheat with sudo depending on how well locked down it is.
You seem to be missing the point that I'm talking about a home box where you're the only person using it. You set it up, you set the root password and I see no reason not to use it (with su) for admin tasks. Using sudo when you have the root password just seems silly to me.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
You seem to be missing the point that I'm talking about a home box where you're the only person using it. You set it up, you set the root password and I see no reason not to use it (with su) for admin tasks. Using sudo when you have the root password just seems silly to me.
And you seem to be missing the point that some others are talking about. Some admin tasks are performed by some admins extremely frequently. Using sudo allows them to avoid typing the root password 75 times a day just to remind the system over and over again that, yes, they do have the authority to do this.
It's the same reason that I set up domain keys for servers that I log into constantly. I know all the passwords, but I don't want to retype them every 15 minutes just to reestablish my authority to do again the same thing I do all day long.
-Alan
On 03/22/2011 08:13 AM, Alan Evans wrote:
And you seem to be missing the point that some others are talking about. Some admin tasks are performed by some admins extremely frequently.
Yes. On production boxes where the rules and protocols are different. I'm talking about *home boxes* where the user is the admin is the owner of the box and, presumably, set it up themself. Apples and oranges, Alan, apples and oranges. The point that sysadmins are often *required by their bosses* to use sudo was well made and I've been careful to keep it in mind ever since it was pointed out to me.
On 2011/03/21 11:40, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/21/2011 11:28 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
Either way, I prefer to give users sudo as it is restrictive and I know what they can/cannot do and how much damge I'll have to fix when they break things.
My point is, if it's your box and you're the only user, you know the root password and there's no excuse for using sudo. Using sudo under those circumstances is, IMAO one of the hallmarks of the luser. Please note that I'm a long-term member of the Scary Devil Monastery, and this attitude is typical of a monk. If you don't know what that last sentence meant, be glad.
No, Joe, you use sudo. That's one less character to type.
{^_-}
You generic not you specific.
There have been times on Mint/Ubuntu I've simply used "sudo su -l", done my work, and exited. For some things the command prompts work oh so much better. Mint is nice. I am not sure I like ubuntu or its community very much. They make this place look adult, which I realize is a stretch.
{^_-} (I gotta get up to lasfs sometime soon and say hi.)
On 2011/03/21 17:36, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/21/2011 05:28 PM, jdow wrote:
No, Joe, you use sudo. That's one less character to type.
Actually, I don't, because I've never set up sudo. I only use it when orking on my sister's Ubuntu box because that's the way Ubuntu works.
2011/3/21 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com
On 3/21/11, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/21/2011 08:34 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
Perhaps a command line tool for enabling configuration: sudo IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
I'd like to see the response to that be:'
"You lie; you used sudo."
If you're a proper Linux user on your own box, you use this:
su -c IHerebySwear 'I am not now and have never been a Windows user.'
sudo, used by sysadmins who KNOW their users will be abusive.
su - used by sysadmins who checked out their user's credentials and found out they know more about Linux then they do.
Either way, I prefer to give users sudo as it is restrictive and I know what they can/cannot do and how much damge I'll have to fix when they break things.
James McKenzie
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Quite a Discussion Here, let me give you my opinion:
First of all, KDE is the best desktop. I'm not going to go deeper, but for example, Gnome Shell freezes my machine with my "average workload" for the day. in KDE, (even with Kwin ON) I can load my system very heavily and it stills functioning as seamless as it has to be, no annoying freezes.
By other hand, the adoption of Gnome3Shell is a great step for fedora, First, because the distro is going to will conserve it's fame of being futurist, second, because is the only distro at a first glance that will adopt gnome shell, so we will earn some new users looking for a clean install of that desktop coming from a LiveCD "pre-installed" and not needed to be done by them and finally, I'm glad of this change because old Fedora users will never leave fedora, I'm quite sure (because of what I've been reading in Fedora Planet) That users are going to switch to other desktops, mainly KDE and XFCE, Wich is great because this way, more users can Try the AWESOME desktop KDE is and see it with their own eyes in F15 and also, the ones using XFCE will help making this last desktop a better alternative for everyone.
it's a "win-win" thing :)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/11, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/21/2011 11:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I can see the logic in that, but it's a shame. If everyone who wants a bit of user interface stability jumps ship there will be no brakes on the Gnome developers at all: they'll just carry on deleting user- configurability and adding kewl new features.
Isn't this what the people who are promoting Gnome 3 in Fedora intend?
I don't think that is the intent. I don't think this is the intent of the Gnome3 developers either. However, as Linux moves from a niche to prominenance we are going to pick up the ID10Ts that will click on a button just to see what happens and then cry when their Gnome installation is broken and cannot follow obviously simple instructions. Then they go out and trash Linux. Never mind they brought this upon themselves, Linux sucks and that is their mantra.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Take the simple-greeter "disable_user_list" setting.
In GNOME, you either have to use gconftool-2 or install and use gconf-editor to switch "disable_user_list" on or off.
On OS X (which is supposed to be for people who don't know how to use computers...), changing the equivalent setting is an easily-clickable option in the "Accounts" pane of "System Preferences".
On 03/21/2011 04:15 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 3/21/11, Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/21/2011 11:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I can see the logic in that, but it's a shame. If everyone who wants a bit of user interface stability jumps ship there will be no brakes on the Gnome developers at all: they'll just carry on deleting user- configurability and adding kewl new features.
Isn't this what the people who are promoting Gnome 3 in Fedora intend?
I don't think that is the intent.
Well, it's what they have done, IMNSHO.
Never mind they brought this upon themselves, Linux sucks and that is their mantra. Yes, those of us that know better will have to suffer.
* Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3: I haven't managed to do so, yet.
* Measure the way your mouse will have to travel until you open an application. Was a couple of mm's with Gnome 2 and menus, it now is an oddissey over a series of window panes.
My feel is Gnome 3 might be suitable for usage on smartphones, but not as a DE.
Ralf
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de said:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Really? I played around with gnome-shell on a couple of the graphics test days and was not impressed, but I haven't had a chance to look at it again (or any of F15 unfortunately). My standard desktop is 3 xterms (real xterm, not GNOME terminal) side by side. Browser windows are workspace 2 (with keyboard shortcut Win-F2), games (at home) or docs (at work) on 3, and 4 for miscellaneous stuff. I tend to avoid overlapping windows, as that slows me down.
I disliked the panel-on-top with gnome-shell; the first thing I always do under older GNOME is move the top panel to the right and set the bottom panel to auto-hide. Wtih 16x{9,10} monitors, vertical screen space is the premium.
I hope more configuration tools are written; gconf/dconf are no better than MS's registry (as somebody else pointed out, changing greeter config is a PITA).
I'll look at fallback mode, but I'll probably give XFCE a try.
IMHO one impediment to the perpetual "next year is the year of the Linux Desktop" is the seemingly constant desire to chuck everything and change, often just for the sake of change. On the Windows install or two I have to use, I always switch back to the "Windows Classic" look because it works. That's an interface MS introduced over 15 years ago, but they still support it (IIRC it is still the default for server installs).
Chris Adams <cmadams <at> hiwaay.net> writes:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> said:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
... I disliked the panel-on-top with gnome-shell; the first thing I always do under older GNOME is move the top panel to the right and set the bottom panel to auto-hide. Wtih 16x{9,10} monitors, vertical screen space is the premium.
I hope more configuration tools are written; gconf/dconf are no better than MS's registry (as somebody else pointed out, changing greeter config is a PITA).
I'll look at fallback mode, but I'll probably give XFCE a try.
IMHO one impediment to the perpetual "next year is the year of the Linux Desktop" is the seemingly constant desire to chuck everything and change, often just for the sake of change. On the Windows install or two I have to use, I always switch back to the "Windows Classic" look because it works. That's an interface MS introduced over 15 years ago, but they still support it (IIRC it is still the default for server installs).
I hope the problems you describe are not true :-)
I just shyly executed: $ yum grouplist | grep -i XFCE XFCE XFCE Software Development
There is another option. http://memeburn.com/2011/03/hacker-group-anonymous-declares-war-on-global-ba...
I am just wondering I we petitioned them to take care of a few problems ... Perhaps they are Fedora and GNOME users too ..., even watching this list ... If they were unconvinced, we can mention SELinux as well ... I am sure they will then :-)
JB
On 03/21/2011 06:18 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de said:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Really?
Yes, I am absolutely serious:
I haven't found any possibility to open 2 (or more) side-by-side terminal windows on Fedora 15's Gnome 3.
I also think Gnome's ergonomy has massively regressed between Gnome 2 and Fedora 15's Gnome 3. It has rendered working with Gnome from "fair" to "uneffective" and "clumsy".
I played around with gnome-shell on a couple of the graphics test days and was not impressed,
Neither am I. However, I am aware the graphics are mostly a matter of personal taste.
but I haven't had a chance to look at it again (or any of F15 unfortunately). My standard desktop is 3 xterms (real xterm, not GNOME terminal) side by side. Browser windows are workspace 2 (with keyboard shortcut Win-F2), games (at home) or docs (at work) on 3, and 4 for miscellaneous stuff. I tend to avoid overlapping windows, as that slows me down.
Me desktop layout is similar. 6 workspaces in total. One workspace for thunderbird and firefox, one workspace for "file browsers", 3 workspaces each containing several terminals (grouped by tasks I am working on) and one "spare" workspace. No compiz, no desktop effects (sense-free eye-candy and resource drain)
I disliked the panel-on-top with gnome-shell; the first thing I always do under older GNOME is move the top panel to the right and set the bottom panel to auto-hide.
There was time, I used to move it to the left. As this didn't work out well, I swallowed the top menu and learnt to live with it ;)
Wtih 16x{9,10} monitors, vertical screen space is the premium.
Agreed.
IMHO one impediment to the perpetual "next year is the year of the Linux Desktop"
Wrt. Gnome 3 and Fedora, such statements make me laugh. I am considering them to be shallow marketing word bubbles without any substance.
Ralf
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 12:18 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I disliked the panel-on-top with gnome-shell; the first thing I always do under older GNOME is move the top panel to the right and set the bottom panel to auto-hide. Wtih 16x{9,10} monitors, vertical screen space is the premium.
I think with all monitors, screen space is premium. But I find hiding taskbars a pain, as it turns a "quick do something through a menu," into a slower "wait for menu to appear, before I can do anything."
Having at least one task bar always around makes menus quicker, and you can just look at the thing for some status indicators, because it's always there (clock, network, whatever). It certainly occupies less space than silly desktop applets for a clock/calendar, which are nearly always behind your window, if you're not wasting a big strip of screen space to keep them always visible.
Emulating the sodding Windows start menu (browse up and sideways), in KDE was something that really annoyed me, plus that huge fat taskbar. Mousing is a really un-ergonomic thing, at the best of times, but that made you use the mouse in the most difficult way possible.
The only screenshots that I managed to see of the new Gnome 3 makes it look like they're copying the sugar desktop, or the old Mac launcher. Where you have a series of whacking great big icons for your most used applications wasting screen space, and you had to do a lot of messing around to get to /other/ applications.
Once upon a time, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au said:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 12:18 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I disliked the panel-on-top with gnome-shell; the first thing I always do under older GNOME is move the top panel to the right and set the bottom panel to auto-hide. Wtih 16x{9,10} monitors, vertical screen space is the premium.
I think with all monitors, screen space is premium. But I find hiding taskbars a pain, as it turns a "quick do something through a menu," into a slower "wait for menu to appear, before I can do anything."
In my setup, the auto-hide panel at the bottom only has the window list, which I rarely (if ever) use. All the menus, direct buttons, applets, etc. I use regularly are on the right-hand (non-auto-hide) panel.
The only thing I really miss with this setup is the clock. Some bright person changed the clock applet so that if you add it to a vertical panel, it writes the time sideways, which (a) takes up a bunch of space and (b) is difficult to read.
On 03/21/2011 10:07 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Right click - New window or control+shift+t if you are using GNOME Terminal
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Tour
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet
Rahul
On 03/21/2011 09:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/21/2011 10:07 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Right click - New window or control+shift+t if you are using GNOME Terminal
Doesn't work for me ... nothing happens
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Doesn't work for me ... nothing happens
Just wondering.... Now this thread has moved on to a general discussion on Gnome wouldn't it make some sense to start a new thread with a more meaningful subject?
I think there were some interesting things written...but I doubt that I, for one. as the weeks past remember they were stated under this subject....
On 03/22/2011 05:14 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/21/2011 09:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/21/2011 10:07 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Right click - New window or control+shift+t if you are using GNOME Terminal
Doesn't work for me ... nothing happens
Meanwhile, ctl-shift-t gives me two screens within one terminal ... not 2 side-by-side terminals.
On 03/21/2011 09:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/21/2011 10:07 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Right click - New window or control+shift+t if you are using GNOME Terminal
Doesn't work for me ... nothing happens
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Steven P. Ulrick
On 03/28/2011 10:01 PM, Steven P. Ulrick wrote:
On 03/21/2011 09:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/21/2011 10:07 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- Try to open 2 side-by-side terminals on Fedora 15's Gnome 3:
I haven't managed to do so, yet.
Right click - New window or control+shift+t if you are using GNOME Terminal
Doesn't work for me ... nothing happens
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
Ralf
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
I don't get it. What has this got to do with Gnome 3? This is a standard shortcut for almost any terminal emulator for many years now. And you can always open a new window from the menu of your terminal emulator or sometimes even the right click menu has the option.
Ralf
On 03/29/2011 05:48 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
I don't get it. What has this got to do with Gnome 3?
In other DE's you click on a menu to open an additional terminal.
In Gnome3 such a UI doesn't exist, users are being forced to dig into keyboard short cuts == Lack of usability.
On 03/29/2011 01:08 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In Gnome3 such a UI doesn't exist, users are being forced to dig into keyboard short cuts == Lack of usability.
Seeing as F15 is "alpha" maybe it would be helpful to bring up your observations on the test@lists.fedoraproject.org list? And, of course, you are submitting RFE and/or bugzilla reports.
On 03/29/2011 07:17 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/29/2011 01:08 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In Gnome3 such a UI doesn't exist, users are being forced to dig into keyboard short cuts == Lack of usability.
Seeing as F15 is "alpha" maybe it would be helpful to bring up your observations on the test@lists.fedoraproject.org list? And, of course, you are submitting RFE and/or bugzilla reports.
I've done so for many years, but with Gnome3 my feel is things have developed into a direction, they have "broken my Camel's back".
Ralf
On 03/28/2011 10:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I've done so for many years, but with Gnome3 my feel is things have developed into a direction, they have "broken my Camel's back".
I have a desktop and a laptop. I'm thinking of installing XFCE on the laptop, at least and experimenting it. That way, if Gnome3 (especially Gnome Shell) is as bad as it's beginning to sound, all I have to do is log out, log in with XFCE and be done with it once and for all.
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/28/2011 10:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I've done so for many years, but with Gnome3 my feel is things have developed into a direction, they have "broken my Camel's back".
I have a desktop and a laptop. I'm thinking of installing XFCE on the laptop, at least and experimenting it. That way, if Gnome3 (especially Gnome Shell) is as bad as it's beginning to sound, all I have to do is log out, log in with XFCE and be done with it once and for all.
You may not be all that happy with XFCE either, if what you really want is GNOME-2. I don't know where to go after fc14, what I want is GNOME-2, and that isn't happening, Fedora developers drank the kool-aid and not only gave up the far more usable GNOME-2, but also the Fedora theme, replacing with the GNOME-3 prison bars theme.
It's been a good ride, but unless a better WM comes along fc14 is the final destination.
On 04/01/2011 03:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: ou may not be all that happy with XFCE either, if what you really want is
GNOME-2. I don't know where to go after fc14, what I want is GNOME-2, and that isn't happening, Fedora developers drank the kool-aid and not only gave up the far more usable GNOME-2, but also the Fedora theme, replacing with the GNOME-3 prison bars theme.
It's been a good ride, but unless a better WM comes along fc14 is the final destination.
Wayland (plus) has a decent shot of being a good future ... but its a tad early still. Even tho its been cooking for a couple of years, its only 1 course at the moment and the veggies aren't done yet either :-) and dessert is a ways away ...
In the meantime, have you tried KDE - curious what your impressions are of that ?
Its also possible gnome 3 will evolve to something more palatable for you.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:57:14 -0400 Genes MailLists wrote:
Wayland (plus) has a decent shot of being a good future
From what I've heard about wayland it is 100% open GL and has abandoned ordinary X. That isn't going to be very useful at all for folks who do most of their work talking to remote X servers since remote GL stands no chance of being anything other than a total slug.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:57:14 -0400 Genes MailLists wrote:
Wayland (plus) has a decent shot of being a good future
From what I've heard about wayland it is 100% open GL and
has abandoned ordinary X. That isn't going to be very useful at all for folks who do most of their work talking to remote X servers since remote GL stands no chance of being anything other than a total slug.
I heard that the Wayland developers were working on a method of achieving remote graphical working, that would be more efficient than pixel scraping and passing stuff down the network, so more efficient than VNC - and essentially only pass the commands needed to generate the graphics locally - so the local machine renders locally what the remote machine is displaying - but someone with more knowledge will perhaps confirm this?
From what I've heard about wayland it is 100% open GL and
has abandoned ordinary X. That isn't going to be very useful at all for folks who do most of their work talking to remote X servers since remote GL stands no chance of being anything other than a total slug.
Remote GL does not need to be a slug but Wayland doesn't try to address that problem anyway. Wayland is just a glorified compositing engine with some very clever design so it spends its time compositing not copying crap around.
There are lots of ways clients may approach remoteness - including using X protocol
Alan
On 04/01/2011 12:57 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
In the meantime, have you tried KDE - curious what your impressionsare of that ?
Years ago, I knew I'd probably have to decide on either Gnome or KDE, so I examined both of their websites. Gnome's was full of details about what they were doing, what improvements they'd recently made and where they were heading. KDE's was nothing but advocacy. I sent their webmaster a polite email, pointing this out and asking for reasons, other than advocacy, to try KDE. What I got in reply was more advocacy without any attempt to tell me *why* KDE was so good or why I'd like it. I went with Gnome and, until recently, never looked back. I've seen KDE in action a few times on LiveCDs. I didn't like the default look and feel and never felt comfortable enough with it to try to customize it.
On 04/01/2011 12:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You may not be all that happy with XFCE either, if what you really want is GNOME-2.
I don't expect it to be the same. I've got it on my laptop, right now, and there's a few things that don't seem to work under XFCE that did under Gnome, but none of them are deal breakers. As an example, under Gnome, I could use wallpapoz to get my wallpaper changing at random every five minutes, but so far, it doesn't do anything under XFCE. (The daemon runs, it just doesn't have any effect.) And, one or two of my startup programs don't always come up when I log in, but starting them isn't exactly a big deal. It runs smooth and snappy on a 2Gig dual core machine with 3Gig RAM and will probably run better than Gnome on my 1.8Gig single-core desktop maxed out at 1Gig RAM.
BTW, am I the only one who's beginning to think that Gnome 3 was obviously designed *for* morons, not *by* them?
On 1 April 2011 20:41, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/28/2011 10:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I've done so for many years, but with Gnome3 my feel is things have developed into a direction, they have "broken my Camel's back".
I have a desktop and a laptop. I'm thinking of installing XFCE on the laptop, at least and experimenting it. That way, if Gnome3 (especially Gnome Shell) is as bad as it's beginning to sound, all I have to do is log out, log in with XFCE and be done with it once and for all.
You may not be all that happy with XFCE either, if what you really want is GNOME-2. I don't know where to go after fc14, what I want is GNOME-2, and that isn't happening, Fedora developers drank the kool-aid and not only gave up the far more usable GNOME-2, but also the Fedora theme, replacing with the GNOME-3 prison bars theme.
It's been a good ride, but unless a better WM comes along fc14 is the final destination.
My hardware would not support Gnome 3, so a few weeks ago I started looking for alternatives. KDE, XFCE and LXDE run fine on my PC, though I was not feeling enthusiastic about any. So two weeks ago I decided to go minimalist. I am now running a window manager with a few things added on top of it. I am quite happy so far, it is more stable than Gnome 2 + Metacity, and faster
This is not however something that I would recommend to everybody. When one starts looking for a window manager, one soon gets bewildered by the choice: there are dozens of them. It took me many hours to choose one that fit my needs.
Then I spent more hours looking for components that would give me the functionality of the Gnome panel with its applets that I was used to. Lastly there is a need to go thorough configuration files (at least one in XML), and I have encountered bugs in applets which required me to look at source code, changed a source line here or there to suit my needs, needed to rebuild conky to get weather information, and so on. Also depending on the window manager, one may need to know Lisp or Lua. In other words, a window manager is more suitable for those that can program.
On Friday 01 April 2011 20:41:54 Bill Davidsen wrote:
You may not be all that happy with XFCE either, if what you really want is GNOME-2. I don't know where to go after fc14, what I want is GNOME-2, and that isn't happening, Fedora developers drank the kool-aid and not only gave up the far more usable GNOME-2, but also the Fedora theme, replacing with the GNOME-3 prison bars theme.
It's been a good ride, but unless a better WM comes along fc14 is the final destination.
I remember the time when KDE 4.0 appeared in Fedora stable. A whole bunch of people started bitching how ugly and bad it was, a "dumbed-down-Gnome", whatever. And this bunch of people who were using KDE 3.5 decided to switch to Gnome (Linus Thorvalds being one of the most notable), because "KDE developers went nuts", to put it simply. There was just a handful of us left devoted to learn the new desktop paradigms KDE4 introduced.
Back then, I have read somewhere that Gnome (and not just Gnome) is planning to go in the same direction, they just needed more development time. In various discussions on this list (feel free to search the archives), I did make a point that this kind of thing is about to happen with Gnome in the near future, but the general opinion was that Gnome devs are not that stupid and that they will not repeat the KDE 4.0 mistakes.
And now I see it happen. Granted, the mistakes are maybe not the same ones KDE folks were nervous about, but there is roughly equivalent dissatisfaction with the new Gnome as was with KDE. I also (humbly) predicted that this will induce a lot of people to migrate back to KDE, which should be fixed and polished-up by then (ie. by now). Btw, if you bother to take a look at the current KDE 4.5.5, you'll find that it indeed is polished-up and works quite nice. So I guess there will be some backflow of users to KDE from the new Gnome population, coming soon with F15.
There was also some talk back then about parallel support for both KDE 4.0 and KDE 3.5, just like there is today about Gnome 3 and 2. But it didn't happen for KDE, since devs and packagers didn't want to do a double job, and there was noone else to step up and maintain the old and not-developed-anymore 3.5 version.
Somehow I have a feeling that a similar thing is going to happen now with Gnome. Devs are going to abandon version 2 in order to focus on 3 more efficiently, packagers are going to go with latest&greatest as per Fedora philosophy, and there will be noone to step up and do the work to keep the old Gnome 2 in Fedora.
And finally, Fedora will not be the only distro where this happens, others will follow eventually, just like they did with KDE.
I don't want to play a prophet or to sound negative, but --- mark my words... ;-)
My advice is to just try to adapt to new Gnome, or migrate to KDE or some other DE, and adapt to that. But don't weep and moan about Gnome 2, it will be effectively dead very soon, my guess is by the time F15 comes out. ;-)
:-) Marko
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
And finally, Fedora will not be the only distro where this happens, others will follow eventually, just like they did with KDE.
I don't want to play a prophet or to sound negative, but --- mark my words... ;-)
My advice is to just try to adapt to new Gnome, or migrate to KDE or some other DE, and adapt to that. But don't weep and moan about Gnome 2, it will be effectively dead very soon, my guess is by the time F15 comes out. ;-)
There is one big difference - almost all graphics chips will handle KDE4 - but not all will handle Gnome3 and will enter fallback mode....
--- On Sat, 4/2/11, mike cloaked mike.cloaked@gmail.com wrote:
From: mike cloaked mike.cloaked@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OT Humor] "Obviously designed by morons" To: vmarko@ipb.ac.rs, "Community support for Fedora users" users@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011, 6:28 AM On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
And finally, Fedora will not be the only distro where
this happens, others will
follow eventually, just like they did with KDE.
I don't want to play a prophet or to sound negative,
but --- mark my words...
;-)
My advice is to just try to adapt to new Gnome, or
migrate to KDE or some
other DE, and adapt to that. But don't weep and moan
about Gnome 2, it will be
effectively dead very soon
I doubt it (but on Fedora *this is true*). Many folks[*That have a comfort zone with Gnome 2.X*] will stick to Fedora 14 till they can adapt to GNOME 3 or move on to other desktops. KDE 3 did not die, BTW it lives as trinity desktop:
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/
Some speculate that GNOME 2.X will live on as a fork? it is possible but since we use Fedora many of us users will use what is here and unless we are willing to do some work on our own can use the alternative desktops or other ways of dealing with this.
, my guess is by the time F15 comes out. ;-)
There is one big difference - almost all graphics chips will handle KDE4 - but not all will handle Gnome3 and will enter fallback mode....
--
Mike,
Your statement is confirmed :). I have an old Pentium 4 machine with SIS graphics. I installed TC1 Desktop and it went into fallback mode :), it works, but not like the others which are newer. It seems that there are many more differences between KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 and this is definitely one of them. KDE 4.X works(drags), Gnome 3.0 goes into fallback mode, XFCE works too, but LXDE seems to be better suited for these cases?
The development is different, the models are different, but it is the wave of the future. To effectively test and use GNOME 3, we need newer faster and efficient machines. The older ones are not suited for it, or will go into fallback mode :)
Regards,
Antonio
On Saturday 02 April 2011 16:08:45 Antonio Olivares wrote:
My advice is to just try to adapt to new Gnome, or migrate to KDE or some other DE, and adapt to that. But don't weep and moan about Gnome 2, it will be effectively dead very soon
I doubt it (but on Fedora *this is true*). Many folks[*That have a comfort zone with Gnome 2.X*] will stick to Fedora 14 till they can adapt to GNOME 3 or move on to other desktops. KDE 3 did not die, BTW it lives as trinity desktop:
Hmm, this is curious, I didn't know there is a fork out there. :-)
Some speculate that GNOME 2.X will live on as a fork? it is possible but since we use Fedora many of us users will use what is here and unless we are willing to do some work on our own can use the alternative desktops or other ways of dealing with this.
The problem with such forks (both KDE and Gnome) lies in the fact that they will have a hard time supporting new apps. Remember, KDE4 and Gnome 3 provide new desktop functionality that 3rd party apps will start to use eventually (some already do). Such apps will run in the old environment in a very limited way, if at all. For example, will the latest KMail (version 1.13.6) work on top of Trinity desktop? Maybe, but I doubt. There is also the issue of maintaining the old code against new versions of backend libraries, etc.
So the fork devs are up to the task of implementing that new functionality into their fork (which is not easy --- if it were, KDE devs would do the same, rather than write KDE4 from scratch), or they are up to the task of maintaining the old versions of 3rd party apps and backend libs, so that users don't need the modern software. That is also a formidable task, and unlikely to be interesting for the users.
So while I can only praise the effort and motivation of Trinity devs, I am pretty skeptic about long-term life of the project. And I dare say that any potential fork of Gnome 2 will be in the same boat as soon as it starts.
All in all, sooner or later everyone will switch to Gnome3/KDE4/whatever, and these forks will eventually lose the userbase and be abandoned. So I'd say it's better to make a switch right now and get it over with, than to try to keep the old software on life-support, only to make the switch later on. ;-)
:-) Marko
All in all, sooner or later everyone will switch to Gnome3/KDE4/whatever, and these forks will eventually lose the userbase and be abandoned. So I'd say it's better to make a switch right now and get it over with, than to try to keep the old software on life-support, only to make the switch later on. ;-)
Sadly, but most likely to happen. This happened with the users that wanted extended lifesupport for Fedora versions :(
:-) Marko
--
While I agree full heartedly with your statements, *if our machines are older, we will have to live with older desktops or lightweights* and users with older systems can't agree with us :(
I have multiple machines at work running KDE 4.6.X(Fedora 13/14), Gnome 2.32.X(Fedora 14), XFCE(Slackware current/FreeBSD), LXDE(Fedora 14) and 3 or so running GNOME 3(Fedora 15 Alpha/Beta/updating) and so far my students are learning how to do things on GNOME 3 and I also get the benefit of learning from them :) Some students say that I am weird and have many different "windows" running :), and I tell them that Bill Gates has approved these versions of "windows" to combat pirated versions.
Regards,
Antonio
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 17:42 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
All in all, sooner or later everyone will switch to Gnome3/KDE4/whatever, and these forks will eventually lose the userbase and be abandoned. So I'd say it's better to make a switch right now and get it over with, than to try to keep the old software on life-support, only to make the switch later on. ;-)
Though, when you're faced with having to throw away a few thousand dollars of computing hardware (whether that be one expensive computer, or several moderate priced computers), you look long and hard about whether you waste money on something new, that's going to be just as short-lived by the next paradigm change, or you look for something that's more efficient to run on your current hardware. Or, you keep running out-of-date installations.
Sure, I accept pushing the envelope for things that need to be gee whiz (games, 3D CAD, and whatnot), but not for the desktop behind ordinary software.
On Saturday 02 April 2011 18:45:12 Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 17:42 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
All in all, sooner or later everyone will switch to Gnome3/KDE4/whatever, and these forks will eventually lose the userbase and be abandoned. So I'd say it's better to make a switch right now and get it over with, than to try to keep the old software on life-support, only to make the switch later on. ;-)
Though, when you're faced with having to throw away a few thousand dollars of computing hardware (whether that be one expensive computer, or several moderate priced computers), you look long and hard about whether you waste money on something new, that's going to be just as short-lived by the next paradigm change, or you look for something that's more efficient to run on your current hardware. Or, you keep running out-of-date installations.
Sure, I accept pushing the envelope for things that need to be gee whiz (games, 3D CAD, and whatnot), but not for the desktop behind ordinary software.
Of course, I agree, hardware&money limitations are always a pain. But even Gnome 2 and KDE3.5 were not considered to be lightweight environments. It would be better to switch to XFCE or LXDE or something similar on those machines. Or even use some other distro like DSL or something...
It also depends on what you mean by a "desktop behind ordinary software". I mean, one can still make some nonzero use of, say, an ancient 286 machine running MS-DOS, for example. And I still have (and moreover, occasionaly even *use* ) the old Amiga 1200 on my desk, right next to the (fairly modern) PC and a laptop. Call me sentimental, but I just cannot get myself to trash that machine, regardless of its age... ;-) Such an old thing also has a fairly usable desktop, even by today's terms --- you can browse the web (in some rudimentary form), check your e-mail, write in TeX, play card games, listen to mp3 music, program in C, etc. It's just a tad bit too slow for more severe multimedia stuff... ;-)
:-) Marko
On 04/02/2011 06:51 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
I mean, one can still make some nonzero use of, say, an ancient 286 machine running MS-DOS, for example.
A friend of mine is heavily involved in Packet Radio. Most of the stations are still run by software running on CP/M. And, before you ask, they're not using emulators, they're using honest to Ghod Z80 hardware.
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:20:57 -0700 Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 04/02/2011 06:51 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
I mean, one can still make some nonzero use of, say, an ancient 286 machine running MS-DOS, for example.
A friend of mine is heavily involved in Packet Radio. Most of the stations are still run by software running on CP/M. And, before you ask, they're not using emulators, they're using honest to Ghod Z80 hardware.
Still lots of Z80 based ones around in the UK too where the protocol work is done on a magic box on a serial port - never seen anything running CP/M however, the stuff I've seen all runs raw on the hardware.
The bigger nodes have however all been surplanted by Linux 8)
It's not about being ancient though - the Z80 happens to have exactly the right bits easily available for doing packet radio.
Alan
On 2011/04/03 02:17, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:20:57 -0700 Joe Zeffjoe@zeff.us wrote:
On 04/02/2011 06:51 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
I mean, one can still make some nonzero use of, say, an ancient 286 machine running MS-DOS, for example.
A friend of mine is heavily involved in Packet Radio. Most of the stations are still run by software running on CP/M. And, before you ask, they're not using emulators, they're using honest to Ghod Z80 hardware.
Still lots of Z80 based ones around in the UK too where the protocol work is done on a magic box on a serial port - never seen anything running CP/M however, the stuff I've seen all runs raw on the hardware.
The bigger nodes have however all been surplanted by Linux 8)
It's not about being ancient though - the Z80 happens to have exactly the right bits easily available for doing packet radio.
In the US, at least, I suspect you may find a fair number of C64s in use by hams.
{^_^}
On Sunday, April 03, 2011 05:17:54 AM Alan Cox wrote:
Still lots of Z80 based ones around in the UK too where the protocol work is done on a magic box on a serial port - never seen anything running CP/M however, the stuff I've seen all runs raw on the hardware.
Lots of DVD drives use the Z80 and the successor chips (Z180, Z280, eZ80, etc), as have multiple manuafacturer's hard drives.... see the Z80 wikipedia article for many more.
As an old Z80 hack, it's nice to know that skills I picked up as a teenager might still be marketable......I can put on my resume 'wrote a Z80 disassembler in hexadecimal in less than 2K' with a straight face. What I can't/won't do is put with it 'at age 16, in high school, on my free time.' as then it sounds ridiculous..... even though it would be quite true.
Way way OT.... at least until Fedora runs on a eZ80, that is.
Lamar Owen:
Lots of DVD drives use the Z80 and the successor chips
Tom Horsley:
That must explain why it takes 'em 10 minutes to figure out what kind of disk you just put in the drive :-).
LOL! I've never really understood why computer hardware is handled so crapily. The computer can do millions of somethings a second, but it takes 15+ seconds to recognise a disc and mount it, or notice that there's a wireless network, spend ages connecting to it, etc.
I've still got a Z80 based personal computer in the spare room (a VZ300), that I've never figured out a practical use for.
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 20:11 +0930, Tim wrote:
Lamar Owen:
Lots of DVD drives use the Z80 and the successor chips
Tom Horsley:
That must explain why it takes 'em 10 minutes to figure out what kind of disk you just put in the drive :-).
LOL! I've never really understood why computer hardware is handled so crapily. The computer can do millions of somethings a second, but it takes 15+ seconds to recognise a disc and mount it, or notice that there's a wireless network, spend ages connecting to it, etc.
I've still got a Z80 based personal computer in the spare room (a VZ300), that I've never figured out a practical use for.
-- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
That is not the problem. The actual response to the system is an ID code. The system then hunts through a database of ID codes to find the appropriate control structures, at least the first time. If the disk has formatting and control software that must be loaded, then that software has to be read off the disk before its local controller can respond. Disk latency is milliseconds, and if the information is stored for retrieval by a fast system, the slower Z80 or microcontroller may require several revolutions to retrieve various bits of information. The partition table and other records must also be read, taking additional time. However, you are luckily working on Linux, and you are free to improve the software ;-) The disk drive controller software may not be changable, depending upon the design, and whether or not you have access to information about the controller architecture.
Regards, Les H
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 02:29:04 PM Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:06:03 -0400 Lamar Owen wrote:
Lots of DVD drives use the Z80 and the successor chips
That must explain why it takes 'em 10 minutes to figure out what kind of disk you just put in the drive :-).
Heh. Yours must use a Pentium.... my Z80-based DVD drive recognizes any disk I put into it within 30 seconds....
But lots of Fedora-running computers out there have a Z80 somewhere under the hood... (much like the I/O processor of a Tandy 6000 68K Xenix box.....) It could be in the hard drive (lots of Seagate drives, mostly during their highly reliable days, have used Z80's as the system controller.....). It might be in the NIC. It might be anywhere the hardware needs a system controller; and the Z80 handles that task extremely well.
But, again, it would be cool to have a Linux kernel on the newest variant, the eZ80....if it'll fit on an MMUless 68K (ucLinux variant) it should fit in the 24-bit space available to the eZ80. Just no Fedora.....
But that's enough of this OT thread....
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 02:51 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Of course, I agree, hardware&money limitations are always a pain. But even Gnome 2 and KDE3.5 were not considered to be lightweight environments. It would be better to switch to XFCE or LXDE or something similar on those machines. Or even use some other distro like DSL or something...
Though, apparently not as heavy as the newer versions...
I turned off Compiz, because it was a waste of my time. I didn't need it, it's slow animations were a delay. Not to mention being a CPU pig.
I tried a few lighter weight desktops, but they lacked features that I wanted. Such as sensible auto-dis/mounting of removable media. And various applications that I wanted to use were Gnome, so avoiding the Gnome desktop didn't help, the baggage was still needed.
It also depends on what you mean by a "desktop behind ordinary software".
The user interface underneath my word processor, ordinary email and web browsing...
I mean, one can still make some nonzero use of, say, an ancient 286 machine running MS-DOS, for example. And I still have (and moreover, occasionaly even *use* ) the old Amiga 1200 on my desk, right next to the (fairly modern) PC and a laptop. Call me sentimental, but I just cannot get myself to trash that machine, regardless of its age... ;-)
I've still got a few of them around. I work in video production, and they're brilliant for doing live titling. The alternatives being buying expensive custom video equipment, inadequate domestic gear clones of broadcast equipment, or wasting lots of time post producing video, instead of live mixing.
Still got a few A500s and A2000s that don't deserve being dumped, either.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:42:59 +0100 Marko Vojinovic wrote:
For example, will the latest KMail (version 1.13.6) work on top of Trinity desktop?
I don't use gnome or KDE, yet I have no problems running apps from either (at least none of the apps I want to run seem to have any problems - I certainly haven't tried every app in the world).
On Saturday 02 April 2011 20:28:24 Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:42:59 +0100 Marko Vojinovic wrote:
For example, will the latest KMail (version 1.13.6) work on top of Trinity desktop?
I don't use gnome or KDE, yet I have no problems running apps from either (at least none of the apps I want to run seem to have any problems - I certainly haven't tried every app in the world).
I am typing off the top of my head here (ie. I don't know if any of this actually applies to KMail), but this could be a concievable hypothetical scenario:
* you use environment of your choice (it doesn't even need to be a DE, but just a window manager on X, say, WindowMaker)
* you type "yum install kmail" and let it pull in a whole bunch of KDE4 libs along as dependencies
* you start kmail and it works as expected
* then you decide to try out Trinity (ie. the old KDE 3.5) --- you type (hypothetically) "yum groupinstall trinity" from a 3rd party repo
* yum informs you that some libs from the trinity group conflict with those from KDE4, and refuses to install Trinity unless you remove kmail&friends
* you send an e-mail to KDE4 devs asking for help with the conflict, and they respond that they don't support backwards-compatibility between KDE4 and KDE3.5, as a design decision
* you send an e-mail to Trinity devs asking for help with the conflict, and they respond that they cannot change the names of the libs and the API, since that would break compatibility with all 3rd party apps that currently do work with Trinity
* then you yum remove kmail and its libs, install Trinity and try to compile kmail from source against the Trinity libs, just to find out that it refuses to compile due to the libs being too old
* you ask on the Fedora mailing list what to do, and get advice on the lines of using a chrooted environment, building kmail statically, or some other complicated and ugly workaround which is not worth the trouble
As I said, this is a hypothetical situation that one can find oneself in. As another, more realistic example, just try to compile any contemporary nontrivial piece of software against an old 2.2 kernel. It will fail miserably, without even a hope of a possibility to tweak the source to make it compile.
I guess that the KDE3.5 situation is not that radical, but nevertheless... ;-)
:-) Marko
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 02:22:37 +0100 Marko Vojinovic wrote:
As I said, this is a hypothetical situation that one can find oneself in.
Don't worry. I'm sure the security geeks are already planning to foist a linux on the world in which each app runs in a separate virutal machine and therefore could theoretically have a completely separate set of libs to go with it :-).
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
Don't worry. I'm sure the security geeks are already planning to foist a linux on the world in which each app runs in a separate virutal machine and therefore could theoretically have a completely separate set of libs to go with it :-).
http://qubes-os.org/Architecture.html
:)
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Antonio wrote:
Many folks[*That have a comfort zone with Gnome 2.X*] will stick to Fedora 14 till they can adapt to GNOME 3 or [...]
Just like those users, who try to delay an upgrade for several months in hope that the dist will have ironed out most errors by then and will be more stable. Only to learn that once they've done the upgrade, they discover bugs. Often pet peeve bugs even. ;) One can only repeat: Guys, take a look at a Fedora release *much* earlier and try to find and report bugs much earlier.
On 04/02/2011 11:33 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Just like those users, who try to delay an upgrade for several months in hope that the dist will have ironed out most errors by then and will be more stable.
Or do what I did with F 10. I saw so many bugs and problems with it in the fedoraforum that I simply stayed with 9 until 11 came out and skipped 10 altogether and never regretted it.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Antonio wrote:
Many folks[*That have a comfort zone with Gnome 2.X*] will stick to Fedora 14 till they can adapt to GNOME 3 or [...]
Just like those users, who try to delay an upgrade for several months in hope that the dist will have ironed out most errors by then and will be more stable. Only to learn that once they've done the upgrade, they discover bugs. Often pet peeve bugs even. ;) One can only repeat: Guys, take a look at a Fedora release *much* earlier and try to find and report bugs much earlier.
We were told that GNOME3 was NOTABUG, so what to do now?
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Antonio wrote:
Many folks[*That have a comfort zone with Gnome 2.X*] will stick to Fedora 14 till they can adapt to GNOME 3 or [...]
Just like those users, who try to delay an upgrade for several months in hope that the dist will have ironed out most errors by then and will be more stable. Only to learn that once they've done the upgrade, they discover bugs. Often pet peeve bugs even. ;) One can only repeat: Guys, take a look at a Fedora release *much* earlier and try to find and report bugs much earlier.
We were told that GNOME3 was NOTABUG, so what to do now?
Sad to say, but if we want 'Joe Average User' to use Linux, we are going to have to dumb it down. Take a look at the giant leap between Windows 3.x and Windows95 in the dumb down department. For those of us that know what we are doing there are always alternatives. I know how to massively break and root MacOSX. Would I recommend that to the Sorority gal that is doing a terrible job with an Excel spreadsheet, nope. For the dude/gal with the MSCS, sure.
I have not looked at KDE4 under the hood, but I suspect there is not a thing that I cannot do from the command line that I have to do with a GUI. That's just me.
BTW, I've just spent the better part of three weeks trying to get a script to build Wine on my Mac. Adventures in programming/scripting I say....
James McKenzie
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 08:18 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Sad to say, but if we want 'Joe Average User' to use Linux, we are going to have to dumb it down.
Who says *we* want that to happen, or even *they* want that to happen? Is that actually a goal? When did it become a goal to aim for Linux being just another consumer product?
Is it even an achievable goal, or even a desirable thing to attempt to do? History has shown that when you dumb down computers to the point where stupid people can use them, they do stupid things with them.
Why does everything have to get dragged down to that level? There's no point in being another Windows clone, just use Windows if you want that level of crap.
Good grief, I use Linux, and so do many others, precisely because we don't want to use crap like Windows. It's not just an issue of the dollar cost of using it, but the huge amount of time wasting Windows inflicts upon you, the unstableness, it shooting itself in the foot, the sheer and utter stupidity of its design basis.
If you want an example of what not to do with computing, Windows is *the* example of the worst possible way that you could ever do it. Don't copy it.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 08:18 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Sad to say, but if we want 'Joe Average User' to use Linux, we are going to have to dumb it down.
Who says *we* want that to happen, or even *they* want that to happen? Is that actually a goal? When did it become a goal to aim for Linux being just another consumer product?
Actually, at this point, the who is those that want to make MONEY with Linux and pry folks away from Windows. What we say/do really does not make a difference.
Is it even an achievable goal, or even a desirable thing to attempt to do? History has shown that when you dumb down computers to the point where stupid people can use them, they do stupid things with them.
And that is very true. This is happening all over the place.
Why does everything have to get dragged down to that level? There's no point in being another Windows clone, just use Windows if you want that level of crap.
The fact that things are being dragged down to that level shows that folks do not want Linux to remain a 'niche' product and to add to the bottom line. This is happening everywhere. RedHat does not and should not exist just for our pleasure, but to enrichen those who have financally supported them.
Good grief, I use Linux, and so do many others, precisely because we don't want to use crap like Windows. It's not just an issue of the dollar cost of using it, but the huge amount of time wasting Windows inflicts upon you, the unstableness, it shooting itself in the foot, the sheer and utter stupidity of its design basis.
Linux is a stable operating environment, so is MacOSX. Why do you think I use them? Windows is not because of its design, not the fancy window dressing. Changes to the window do not change the house that surrounds it. Remember, we have many window designs, the folks using Windows don't.
If you want an example of what not to do with computing, Windows is *the* example of the worst possible way that you could ever do it. Don't copy it.
Again, Windows has many, many flaws that would require a complete rebuild. Linux does not. Hiding 'killer' things away from stupid users is a noble jesture. Apple did this and they are making a killing in the marketplace. Yes, there are those of us that know what goes on 'under the hood' and I would not recommend that Joe User even try half of the stuff I do. If we are skilled at what we do, we should be able to do it, but if you are not, you should not. Gnome3 and KDE4 realize that. We can sit here and argue all day about this, but GNOME3 is complete as far as the design team is concerned and it is what THEY want. Remember if we want Linux to move forward, we are going to have to take into account the ID10T factor. Yes, there should be a 'experienced' user version, and maybe the GNOME folks will realize this, sometime in the future. But for now, the WM meets their needs and requirements.
James McKenzie
On 4/12/11 9:45 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 08:18 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Sad to say, but if we want 'Joe Average User' to use Linux, we are going to have to dumb it down.
Who says *we* want that to happen, or even *they* want that to happen? Is that actually a goal? When did it become a goal to aim for Linux being just another consumer product?
It is not the *AIM* for Linux to be a consumer product but to penetrate MORE of the desktop marketplace. Android, which is just a modified Linux, is beating its competition, iOS and Windows Mobile. And it has a 'fancy' interface to boot. Nothing says that 'under the hood' has to be changed, just the HID (GUI) so that folks will not shoot themselves in the foot. Yes, those of us who 'grew up' with Linux are going to be upset, but we learned, sometimes from very bad incidents, what not to do.
Is it even an achievable goal, or even a desirable thing to attempt to do? History has shown that when you dumb down computers to the point where stupid people can use them, they do stupid things with them.
This is very true. It drove the folks absolutely crazy when Windows95 came out at most technical support lines. The running joke about the guy breaking off the coffee cup holder is just the tip of the iceberg. Most folks are now more computer savvy but they don't want to have to deal with 'tweaking' their system just to get it to start. I come from the old CLI days (mouse what is that thing). However, most of my computer using 'buddies' cannot remember the days before Windows98SE.
Why does everything have to get dragged down to that level? There's no point in being another Windows clone, just use Windows if you want that level of crap.
They don't want an OS that they have to reboot everyday. I use a Mac, with MacOSX. The Cocoa interface is just a cover for a very modified and hardened version of FreeBSD. The same could be done for Linux and it looks like it is in progress. Those of us who know how to use the CLI will not be inhibited from crashing our systems (and I build Wine on my Mac, so I have to know a thing or two about the CLI.)
Good grief, I use Linux, and so do many others, precisely because we don't want to use crap like Windows. It's not just an issue of the dollar cost of using it, but the huge amount of time wasting Windows inflicts upon you, the unstableness, it shooting itself in the foot, the sheer and utter stupidity of its design basis.
So, if I change the front door to my house, does that mean the toilet stops working and I have to change my stove from Natural Gas to Electric? No. That is all Gnome/KDE are. Front Doors. You may have to learn to use a different key and maybe it is sealed a little better, but you still have available all of the little goodies behind the scenes. If this were not true, a lot of folks would have abandoned Ubuntu/RH/Debian when KDE 4 was released. They did not and more folks have come to use Linux. Of course the fact that we have more powerful machines means that more things have moved to Graphics vice CLI. However, the CLI tools should still exist just in case that wonderful front door will not unlock.
If you want an example of what not to do with computing, Windows is *the* example of the worst possible way that you could ever do it. Don't copy it.
Windows was a really bad way to throw a graphical interface onto a very broken operating system that was stolen in the first place. The folks on the Gnome and KDE projects have been working on just adding a HID GUI for a long, long time. They have not tried to change the kernel, which was needed for WindowsNT and its ilk. I don't see this as a 'deal breaker' for Linux, I see it as a way to get more folks off of a broken OS and onto an OS that actually can run more than a day or two without serious breakage.
BTW, you can change the front door on your Linux system or choose to break a hole in the wall if you wish (run no GUI at all), not so with Windows.
James McKenzie
On 04/17/2011 04:11 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
BTW, you can change the front door on your Linux system
...and that's exactly what I've done. Both my laptop and my desktop are now running XFCE instead of Gnome because I don't like the direction Gnome is taking. If the Gnome Shell were optional, and the type of UI that's been part of Gnome for years were still part of Gnome 3 for those of us who prefer it, I'd never have considered changing. As it is, not only have I jumped ship, I'm suggesting that all of my friends who use Gnome take a look at XFCE in case they end up feeling the way I do.
(From what I can see, the Gnome Shell is designed to appeal to young computer users who've always used a GUI and want the Latest and Greatest, partially *because it's the Latest and Greatest. Most of the computer users I know personally grew out of that mindset decades ago, meaning that we're not part of the target demographic.)
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 16:11 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
So, if I change the front door to my house, does that mean the toilet stops working and I have to change my stove from Natural Gas to Electric? No.
Yes, if they're designed by Microsoft...
(Could not resist)
Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- On Sat, 4/2/11, mike cloakedmike.cloaked@gmail.com wrote:
From: mike cloakedmike.cloaked@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OT Humor] "Obviously designed by morons" To: vmarko@ipb.ac.rs, "Community support for Fedora users"users@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011, 6:28 AM On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Marko Vojinovicvvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
And finally, Fedora will not be the only distro where
this happens, others will
follow eventually, just like they did with KDE.
I don't want to play a prophet or to sound negative,
but --- mark my words...
;-)
My advice is to just try to adapt to new Gnome, or
migrate to KDE or some
other DE, and adapt to that. But don't weep and moan
about Gnome 2, it will be
effectively dead very soon
I doubt it (but on Fedora *this is true*). Many folks[*That have a comfort zone with Gnome 2.X*] will stick to Fedora 14 till they can adapt to GNOME 3 or move on to other desktops. KDE 3 did not die, BTW it lives as trinity desktop:
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/
Some speculate that GNOME 2.X will live on as a fork? it is possible but since we use Fedora many of us users will use what is here and unless we are willing to do some work on our own can use the alternative desktops or other ways of dealing with this.
I don't view the window manager as a video game, and I have more things I want to learn than time to learn them. Therefore, I really reject the idea of having to waste time learning GNOME3, which by design will never do what I want because it is designed from the bottom up with the top priority being keeping dumb users from hurting themselves rather than letting competent users be productive.
What a shame, after making GNOME2 so good, instead of make GNOME3 more powerful, they decided to make it "child safe" instead.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I don't view the window manager as a video game, and I have more things I want to learn than time to learn them. Therefore, I really reject the idea of having to waste time learning GNOME3, which by design will never do what I want because it is designed from the bottom up with the top priority being keeping dumb users from hurting themselves rather than letting competent users be productive.
What a shame, after making GNOME2 so good, instead of make GNOME3 more powerful, they decided to make it "child safe" instead.
Your comments/complaints will not be heard by anyone on the GNOME team on this list. If you wish to discuss any changes to GNOME3 you are better off posting to the desktop[1] list. Note: The desktop list is not a gripe area. You should have concrete issues with possible solutions. Patches will help drive your idea(s) further, too.
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Saturday 02 April 2011 14:28:06 mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
My advice is to just try to adapt to new Gnome, or migrate to KDE or some other DE, and adapt to that. But don't weep and moan about Gnome 2, it will be effectively dead very soon, my guess is by the time F15 comes out. ;-)
There is one big difference - almost all graphics chips will handle KDE4 - but not all will handle Gnome3 and will enter fallback mode....
Ah, that's because of Compiz. When I first found out that KDE devs are implementing 3D desktop effects into KWin window manager, I asked why are they reinventing the wheel, since Compiz is way more developed in this respect.
Their answer was --- Compiz doesn't work without 3D acceleration while KWin does, and KWin is overall better integrated in the new KDE than Compiz. So they figured it is less work to reimplement all of (ie. most of) 3D desktop effects in KWin, than to implement 2D fallback functionality in Compiz. It's an ugly tradeoff, but I generally understand and agree with their decision. Of course, one can always ignore KWin and run Compiz on top of KDE, without any problems, if one has proper graphics hardware for that. I do that since F9, and with every new Fedora version I check out the current capabilities of KWin desktop effects and whether they're good enough to switch from Compiz to KWin. So far they're not there yet, so I keep using Compiz.
The Gnome devs apparently decided to take the opposite route in the above tradeoff situation. Whether or not it is uglier than what KDE folks are doing, I don't want to judge, time will tell. ;-)
Compiz is designed with a built-in assumption of availability of 3D acceleration, and it would be extremly hard to make it work without it. So I guess Gnome devs are using Compiz when 3D is available, and fallback to the old WM (is it Metacity?) when it isn't available. So in a way they have to maintain two window managers simultaneously, which was exactly the situation KDE devs decided to avoid. Such type of decisions depend highly on the development model, available manpower, details of the relevant API's, etc. Maybe both Gnome and KDE devs made correct decisions, each for their own environment. I'm curious to see how will it pan out in the long run. :-)
:-) Marko
On 03/29/2011 01:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I've done so for many years, but with Gnome3 my feel is things have developed into a direction, they have "broken my Camel's back".
Well, I'm sorry to hear about your camel. But, as I've heard it, the folks on the test list may not be here and isn't that your target audience?
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:08:58 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/29/2011 05:48 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
I don't get it. What has this got to do with Gnome 3?
In other DE's you click on a menu to open an additional terminal.
In Gnome3 such a UI doesn't exist, users are being forced to dig into keyboard short cuts == Lack of usability.
That is incorrect, could it be possible you didn't see the menus because of some bugs? Here is a screenshot showing what I said in my previous post.
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll164/jalladandtux/screenies/Gnome3-1.png http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll164/jalladandtux/screenies/Gnome3.png
On 03/29/2011 08:53 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:08:58 +0200 Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/29/2011 05:48 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
I don't get it. What has this got to do with Gnome 3?
In other DE's you click on a menu to open an additional terminal.
In Gnome3 such a UI doesn't exist, users are being forced to dig into keyboard short cuts == Lack of usability.
That is incorrect, could it be possible you didn't see the menus because of some bugs?
Possible, yum update'ing and rebooting braught the right click menu.
Here is a screenshot showing what I said in my previous post.
I now see them - better than nothing.
Still, usability and SW ergonomy is different than what I experience with Fedora 15's Gnome 3 implementation.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:38:33 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
What, You aren't omniscient? What are you doing using linux? Omniscience is a prerequisite (or at least a lot of googling :-).
On 03/29/2011 02:29 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:38:33 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Perhaps "control+shift+n" ?
Yeah, ... this finally did it.
But note how long it took to find this out - IMO, it proves Gnome3's lack of usability.
What, You aren't omniscient?
No I am not - I am human like most others around here.
What are you doing using linux?
Avoiding Windows, MACs, promoting FLOSS.
Omniscience is a prerequisite (or at least a lot of googling :-).
Seems so - I am glad Linux != Gnome 3.
Ralf
James McKenzie wrote:
On 3/21/11, Ralf Corsepiusrc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/21/2011 11:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 19/03/11 05:21, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
I may have to skip F15, which saddens me.
Why? If Gnome 3 is in F 15, it's going to be in 16 as well. Just move to a different desktop, like XFCE.
... or a different distro, which is equipped with DEs which better match an individual's demands.
This is certainly an option. With Linux we have that ability. Windows users don't.
I can see the logic in that, but it's a shame. If everyone who wants a bit of user interface stability jumps ship there will be no brakes on the Gnome developers at all: they'll just carry on deleting user- configurability and adding kewl new features.
Isn't this what the people who are promoting Gnome 3 in Fedora intend?
I don't think that is the intent. I don't think this is the intent of the Gnome3 developers either. However, as Linux moves from a niche to prominenance we are going to pick up the ID10Ts that will click on a button just to see what happens and then cry when their Gnome installation is broken and cannot follow obviously simple instructions. Then they go out and trash Linux. Never mind they brought this upon themselves, Linux sucks and that is their mantra. Yes, those of us that know better will have to suffer.
Yes, Linux wouldn't be safe if you let people just click on things to see what they did. It would be like Android. Wait, there's a hint as to how people react to freedom, bring back GNOME-2.
Chris Kloiber wrote:
On 03/18/2011 07:46 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:10:16 -0300 Fernando Cassia wrote:
This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
Google is going down the same path
Just wait till everyone sees gnome 3 :-).
Uh.. yeah. Just did for the first time. It's pretty, I'll give it that. Of course if I wanted a MAC, I'd buy one.
Finally got out of it and into the "fallback" mode, and find I still can't use that as it's been gutted. I can't even move the silly gnome-panel to the bottom of the screen, or move items around to my liking. I may have to skip F15, which saddens me.
Please Include all of the F14 version/branch of Gnome as the Fallback mode.
Amen. The vertical pattern of FC15 suggest bars, to remind you that the object is now to keep you in, lest you hurt yourself. GNOME-3 suck rocks off the bottom of the ocean IMHO.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:17 PM, john wendel jwendel10@comcast.net wrote:
I thought you guys might get a chuckle from this,
My wife just got a shiny new HP laptop with Windows 7 installed. She has never used Windows before, having mainly used Gnome on Fedora boxes. After a week of struggling, she just asked me to wipe Windows and install Fedora so she can get some work done without fighting the desktop. This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
I guess it depends on what you're familiar with. I personally thought W7 looked very polished. I suspect it could probably be tweaked to work like Gnome, but why bother.
It depends on your definition of 'moron'. I've used Macs for years and the UA is sheer genius to get the 'common user' to work with the system. Yes, it has to be 'dumbed down' as most users don't even know the term 'menu bar'. I've liked Gnome since it first came out because it made the assumption that the person in front of the screen actually knew something about computers and how they worked. If Gnome 3 is a step away from this, it might be better for Linux, but not so for those of us that have used it for about 18 years. (Slack .91 anyone?)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:56 AM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com wrote:
If Gnome 3 is a step away from this, it might be better for Linux, but not so for those of us that have used it for about 18 years.
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak. That is one of the reasons I switched to being a full time linux user from a full time Windows user and one of the reasons why I am not comfortable with Macs.
On 03/18/2011 11:39 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak.
If nothing else, I resent the way they've made it almost impossible to customize your system sounds. You either use the bland, wimpy, boring sounds they give you or nothing.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/18/2011 11:39 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak.
If nothing else, I resent the way they've made it almost impossible to customize your system sounds.
... and the power management madness. :-/
On 03/18/2011 03:17 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
1) It is interesting to note, that while the linux core (kernel, drivers, file systems, compilers) have undergone slow and persistent improvements to being the best they have ever been - (see 2.6.38 kernel and auto sched for example), by contrast the UI's seem to have been going through large cyclic re-inventions - for many folk for the worse tho for many for the better.
2) KDE 3.5's move to its then 'future' with KDE 4 - lost many to gnome. Now gnome shell should have learned from this earlier gain ... either it will change and improve and be the awesome 'future' - or it will open up opportunity for KDE or Wayland (when its time to be the new awesome 'future' comes too !! :-) or ...
3) Are you guys asking if Fedora should be debating, discussing and deciding whether to follow gnome shell or choose a different path forward for its primary GUI?
There will some who want KDE, some who want old gnome (not an option, sorry) and some who want gnome shell and some even who want to go Wayland way (possibly others too).
4) Do we have a mechanism for such a debate anyway?
Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea - start a different branch of gnome or kde (or something new) and see which one people install the most:-).
You mean... XFCE? Or... LXDE? ... or Enlightenment (the one people claim is holy water)?
Gnome 3 will be rough as it is still under heavy development, but it should have a bright future. I am not using Gnome 2 as it is meant to be run (only 1 panel, Gnome shell-like setup) and have been doing so for over a year now.
On 03/18/2011 02:15 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
(only 1 panel, Gnome shell-like setup) and have been doing so for over a year now.
The first thing I do on any new install is move everything I need to the bottom panel and get rid of the top one. Even with the desktop cube from Compiz, I see no reason to waste screen real estate that way.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
The first thing I do on any new install is move everything I need to the bottom panel and get rid of the top one. Even with the desktop cube from Compiz, I see no reason to waste screen real estate that way.
It will be interesting to see what you do with gnome3 if you want to change things once you install F15....
On 03/18/2011 03:30 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
It will be interesting to see what you do with gnome3 if you want to change things once you install F15....
As always, I'll use preupgrade and see what it looks like afterwards. I'll probably install XFCE beforehand and experiment with it so that if I don't like Gnome, I can simply log out, log back in and be done with it.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:56 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote:
The first thing I do on any new install is move everything I need to the bottom panel and get rid of the top one.
The first thing I do is install fvwm and run my own .fvwmrc file and xsession script and avoid the ever changing gnome and kde screen real estate hogs completely. It always works exactly the way I want it to, and only changes appearance when I'm the one making the change :-).
I do have to spend some time tracking down the plethora of background daemons I have to start if I want to be able to run individual gnome and/or kde apps (though kde apps usually work OK without me doing too much).
On 03/18/2011 05:35 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2011 02:15 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
(only 1 panel, Gnome shell-like setup) and have been doing so for over a year now.
The first thing I do on any new install is move everything I need to the bottom panel and get rid of the top one. Even with the desktop cube from Compiz, I see no reason to waste screen real estate that way.
Ditto!
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea - start a different branch of gnome or kde (or something new) and see which one people install the most:-).
You mean... XFCE? Or... LXDE? ... or Enlightenment (the one people claim is holy water)?
In longer terms, likely. In short terms, I'd expect people to switch to different distros and OSes.
Gnome 3 will be rough as it is still under heavy development,
... not without major changes, if you'd ask me.
but it should have a bright future.
... the question to me is: Where and for whom?
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea - start a different branch of gnome or kde (or something new) and see which one people install the most.
You mean... XFCE? Or... LXDE? ... or Enlightenment (the one people claim is holy water)?
In longer terms, likely. In short terms, I'd expect people to switch to different distros and OSes. ...
I have not tried F15 Alpha yet. I am wondering how the systemd, the new important feature works ? Remember, it was dropped from F14 ...
" systemd
Fedora 15 has replaced Upstart with systemd. systemd uses services files located in /lib/systemd/system for services, and /etc/systemd/system for configuration. A dozen desktop daemons [list them] have been initially converted to use systemd service files and small number of programs have been patched to take advantage of it. systemd is compatible with legacy SysV init scripts and rest of the migration will happen incrementally over time. "
JB
On 03/19/2011 10:45 AM, JB wrote:
Ralf Corsepius<rc040203<at> freenet.de> writes:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea - start a different branch of gnome or kde (or something new) and see which one people install the most.
You mean... XFCE? Or... LXDE? ... or Enlightenment (the one people claim is holy water)?
In longer terms, likely. In short terms, I'd expect people to switch to different distros and OSes. ...
I have not tried F15 Alpha yet.
I gave it a try, but ... many, many issues, ... ... primary issue to me: Gnome3 ... "Kool Kiz" may like it ... I so far am not impressed and have started to look for alternatives.
... it's still "F15 alpha", so it's too early to start yelling,
I am wondering how the systemd, the new important feature works ?
... not so smoothly, AFAICT ... packaging-wise it's still a major issue.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
On 03/19/2011 10:45 AM, JB wrote:
Ralf Corsepius<rc040203<at> freenet.de> writes:
On 03/18/2011 10:15 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea - start a different branch of gnome or kde (or something new) and see which one people install the most.
You mean... XFCE? Or... LXDE? ... or Enlightenment (the one people claim is holy water)?
In longer terms, likely. In short terms, I'd expect people to switch to different distros and OSes. ...
I have not tried F15 Alpha yet.
I gave it a try, but ... many, many issues, ... ... primary issue to me: Gnome3 ... "Kool Kiz" may like it ... I so far am not impressed and have started to look for alternatives.
... it's still "F15 alpha", so it's too early to start yelling, ...
http://www.gnome3.org/faq.html
It is to expect that both GNOME and Fedora will want to throw their weight of devs and users/testers behind GNOME 3. But the very early reviews are mostly ranging from confusion to negative.
I remember long time ago I was a fan of KDE, but KDE started deteriorating, and with KDE 4 it was over for me. I switched to GNOME and actually liked it progressively. Also, there is a lot of GNOME tools, utilities, and advanced applications.
There is a danger that in case of an abrupt GNOME 2 phaseout, many users and add-on devs would be lost. The damage could affect some distros as well. I hope that both GNOME and Fedora projects take this into consideration. There is a big and painful lesson to learn from KDE 4 debacle.
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ? Is there any official statement by Fedora with regard to that ?
JB
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:05 AM, JB jb.1234abcd@gmail.com wrote:
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ?
As a former os2 user I ran the same desktop interface with a frozen API for almost a decade... software still gets written for it, still...
What is so bad about a frozen API? In this case, a frozen Gnome 2.x API? the other underlying components can evolve (kernel, x.org etc) but nothing prevents people from continuing building gnome 2.x on top of each new linux release. Suppose all Gnome 2.x devs die (we´ll all die, eventually)... whats the technical barrier to continue bulding Gnome 2.x forever?
Sorry if I´m missing something... I´m half asleep.
I just think a frozen API is actually good, as it allows people to just fix crashing bugs and stop re-inventing the wheel and prevents feature creep and bloat...
FC
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
I just think a frozen API is actually good, as it allows people to just fix crashing bugs and stop re-inventing the wheel and prevents feature creep and bloat...
I hope that you realise you are talking about Fedora? The project goals for Fedora has always been to test the latest software and technologies. This is a distro which even releases with beta versions as the default browser for example (Firefox in F11). So if you expect slow development you are welcome to use RHEL/Centos/Scientific Linux.
I don't like the new Gnome either, but I still think it should be included. More testing and feedback (negative in this case) will actually help it get to a place we as users would like it to be. The KDE "fiasco" actually turned out very well after distros like Fedora and SUSE stayed with it and helped sort out all the instabilities and inconsistencies.
This is the nature of FOSS, and that is what makes it great. We as users can actually influence the direction of the projects.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:15:10 -0700 suvayu ali wrote:
I don't like the new Gnome either, but I still think it should be included. More testing and feedback (negative in this case) will actually help it get to a place we as users would like it to be.
Oh yes, for a great example of how well gnome developers respond to negative feedback check out this bugzilla:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136541
Every once in a while I go back and re-read it just for the entertainment value :-).
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
Oh yes, for a great example of how well gnome developers respond to negative feedback check out this bugzilla:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136541
Every once in a while I go back and re-read it just for the entertainment value :-).
I remember that bugzilla from when it was current. It's is an absolute classic!
And, sadly, it exemplifies perfectly the attitudes I recall when I frequented the gnome mailing list. "You don't know anything because you never did any formal studies of 'typical' users."
I'm also reminded of this closer-to-home classic: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-May/372990.html
-Alan
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:43:42 -0700 Alan Evans wrote:
I'm also reminded of this closer-to-home classic: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-May/372990.html
Yea, that thread was one of the inspirations for this rant:
http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/wisdom/braindump/oss-happens.html
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, suvayu ali fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you realise you are talking about Fedora?
Yes but if changes are so radical -like Unity on Ubuntu- Fedora could very well decide to include both Gnome 3 *and* continue maintaining Gnome 2.x at the latest level, issuing fixes, even if the gnome team decides to stop the 2.x branch.
Just like XFCE is included.
In fact,the issue becomes moot if Gnome renames Gnome 2.x as "Gnome-classic". So Fedra 15, 16, 17, 18 can include the latest greatest "bleeding edge" Gnome 3.x with its radical "innovations" and those of us who prefer the old way of doing things can select to run "Gnome-classic", that is, the current 2.x code, maintained forward with bugfixes...
FC
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but if changes are so radical -like Unity on Ubuntu- Fedora could very well decide to include both Gnome 3 *and* continue maintaining Gnome 2.x at the latest level, issuing fixes, even if the gnome team decides to stop the 2.x branch.
Just like XFCE is included.
I think you are missing the point. Packaging a desktop environment when the upstream has deprecated it and packaging an alternate desktop environment like XFCE which is niche but very active are very different things in terms of effort. Try building a patched version of a reasonably complicated package group, you will see it for yourself.
And FYI, I am a full time XFCE user for 2 years now. I am only interested in Gnome because changes in some of their cross desktop applets are affecting XFCE. (e.g. nm-applet and packagekit update icon)
Just like XFCE is included.
I think you are missing the point. Packaging a desktop environment when the upstream has deprecated it and packaging an alternate desktop environment like XFCE which is niche but very active are very
You think GNOME3 won't rapidly become "niche" ?
I would definitely like to see both included - GNOME 3.0 isn't going to be a good step, any more than certain KDE .0. 3.1 on the other hand who knows...
Fernando Cassia <fcassia <at> gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:05 AM, JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ?
As a former os2 user I ran the same desktop interface with a frozen API for almost a decade... software still gets written for it, still... ...
Keep in mind that OS2 was and still is a commercial OS and desktop environment, with commercial clients base, where money can be made just by maintaining it.
Free and open software is a different pair of shoes. Devs and their apps can pop up suddenly, even enjoy popularity for some time, then may be dropped and left unmaintained suddenly as well, without any body else jumping in to continue. It is a much more tricky environment.
JB
On 03/19/2011 05:35 PM, JB wrote:
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ? Is there any official statement by Fedora with regard to that ?
No plans to provide older versions. You can use one of the following things:
* Fallback mode which runs Metacity and GNOME Panel. You can force this setting even if your system is capable of running GNOME Shell. Otherwise it is only enabled in systems which are not capable
* Switch to Xfce. Which can be configured to look and feel identical to GNOME 2.x or try KDE or whatever
* Not upgrade and see if a future revision is more palatable to you
Rahul
On 03/19/2011 10:11 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
In other words, "We're the devs. We know what's right for Gnome and you mere users don't."
To be fair, it tends to be more "you're not our target audience" than "we know what's right."
That said, I've never been able to figure what portion of the UNIX/ Linux-using population (or the population that has even a slight chance of ever touching a UNIX/Linux system) *is* their target audience.
BTW, for those that were put off of KDE by the atrociously managed transition to KDE 4 and any others considering other environments, I encourage you to take a look at KDE in it's current state. KDE rounded into pretty decent shape around 4.4, and 4.6 is really quite nice -- not perfect, but very nice.
On 03/19/2011 08:41 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/19/2011 07:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
- Not upgrade and see if a future revision is more palatable to you
In other words, "We're the devs. We know what's right for Gnome and you mere users don't."
What you said is entirely different from what I said.
Rahul
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:11:03 -0700 Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/19/2011 07:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
- Not upgrade and see if a future revision is more palatable to you
In other words, "We're the devs. We know what's right for Gnome and you mere users don't."
You are not required to run Gnome. There is a lot to be said for not running it be quite frank. If you don't like the Gnome stuff, run something else and your machine will probably also feel a lot faster (XFCE is way faster and cleaner IMHO for example, starts up a ton faster etc)
Rahul Sundaram:
- Not upgrade and see if a future revision is more palatable to you
Joe Zeff:
In other words, "We're the devs. We know what's right for Gnome and you mere users don't."
Well, unless you write all your own programs, it's the same for all software. If software authors weren't so arrogant that they reckon they know more than someone else, they wouldn't be writing their program in the first place... ;-)
You do have to wonder at some decisions, though. Some user interfaces are just bloody awful to use, or require a system with specifications similar to CAD and 3D rendering requirements, but someone thought they were a good idea.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:25:27 +1030 Tim wrote:
Well, unless you write all your own programs, it's the same for all software. If software authors weren't so arrogant that they reckon they know more than someone else, they wouldn't be writing their program in the first place... ;-)
Yea, but then there are the developers who will only listen to the imaginary "typical" users who whisper to them in their mind, and won't pay any attention to actual users who don't conform to their imaginary users.
On 03/22/2011 05:55 AM, Tim wrote:
If software authors weren't so arrogant that they reckon they know more than someone else, they wouldn't be writing their program in the first place... ;-)
The problem I'm commenting about is the Gnome dev's apparent attitude that complaints from users can be ignored because their opinions are *by definition* not worth listening to. A good software author listens to the users and is willing to make changes to the UI if enough of them say it's hard to use. From what I can see, even if 100% of all comments about a particular feature were negative the Gnome devs would refuse to change it because *they know better.*
On 03/22/2011 10:31 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
The problem I'm commenting about is the Gnome dev's apparent attitude that complaints from users can be ignored because their opinions are *by definition* not worth listening to. A good software author listens to the users and is willing to make changes to the UI if enough of them say it's hard to use. From what I can see, even if 100% of all comments about a particular feature were negative the Gnome devs would refuse to change it because *they know better.*
Oh please! The devs obviously have an ideas of what they'd like to do, and won't bend to the wind every time someone complains. You have to do some compelling convincing to change developers' minds. Most people here are complaining about a ".0" release, which they haven't even tried.
I expect many of the rough edges of gnome-shell 3.0 will be fixed quickly.
For example - the hide-the-poweroff-button-by-default idea will apparently die (yay!):
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643457#c28
Reading that bugzilla entry sounds a lot like a developer changing his mind in response to feedback, no?
- Mike
On 03/22/2011 08:07 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
Oh please! The devs obviously have an ideas of what they'd like to do, and won't bend to the wind every time someone complains.
There's a help forum at gnome.org. For the most part, it's a "write only" forum because almost nobody ever bothers to reply to a post or answer a question. The only exception is the way the regulars gather around to flame anybody who dares question the devs, even though said regulars make a point of saying that the devs don't bother to read the forum. From reading around there over the last several years, I've gotten the very strong impression that the devs listen to nobody except each other. I may, of course, be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.
On 03/22/2011 11:46 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
From reading around there over the last several years, I've gotten the very strong impression that the devs listen to nobody except each other. I may, of course, be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.
Everyone has an opinion on how software should be (including the developers!), so open source developers will indeed filter input based on the person's credibility.
If you want to be taken seriously by devs, it helps to file constructive bug reports in the upstream bugzilla, AFTER researching the existing reports.
After you become proficient at researching bugs, you can help triage bugs, without any coding expertise. That enhances credibility too. See: http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad
It helps even more if you submit patches. Obviously you may not have the expertise to submit code patches, but some people do. And just about everyone can submit documentation improvements! Easily!
I mean this as a helpful guide to gaining credibility with devs, rather than as any sort of attack...
- Mike
On 03/22/2011 09:04 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
I mean this as a helpful guide to gaining credibility with devs, rather than as any sort of attack...
That, alas, all depends on the devs and their attitude. I use the Pan newsreader. The dev is a member of the support mailing list and listens to the concerns of the users. Sometimes it's not practical for him to change something, but when that happens, he explains why. He also makes it clear that if you're able to work up a patch that does what you want he'll be glad to look at it and fold it in if it doesn't cause other problems. Alas, he's pretty burned out on the project and looking to pass the torch. Compare that to the Gnome devs who avoid the help forum for their project like the plague, and the Fedora devs who either don't frequent their forum or do so incognito.
On 03/22/2011 12:16 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
That, alas, all depends on the devs and their attitude. I use the Pan newsreader. The dev is a member of the support mailing list and listens to the concerns of the users. Sometimes it's not practical for him to change something, but when that happens, he explains why. He also makes it clear that if you're able to work up a patch that does what you want he'll be glad to look at it and fold it in if it doesn't cause other problems. Alas, he's pretty burned out on the project and looking to pass the torch.
Well, no one wants to be burned out! That's the problem! I can't imagine how Lennart Poettering has any sanity left, after all the pulseaudio+systemd flaming he's had to endure as a result of pushing the software envelope.
Others need to step up and help with support. I try to do that with gThumb, by following various forums and bugzillas. My code quality is embarrassing compared to that of the main gThumb developer, but my support, triaging, and documentation efforts are superior. FOSS only moves ahead if people volunteer and make things happen, rather than just complain...
Compare that to the Gnome devs who avoid the help forum for their project like the plague,
I was totally unaware of those forums. (You mean http://gnomesupport.org/forums/, right?) Better to regard those as self-help forums, rather than expecting/demanding developer support. Your expectations of support from developers who you've never paid a cent to are a little unreasonable. (Some of the devs are paid by others, like RH. A good portion are unpaid volunteers. Keep that in mind.)
Again, please don't take this as an attack. Take it as an invitation to get more involved with the projects that interest you! There are lots of ways for people to contribute, even if they can't provide patches.
- Mike
On 03/22/2011 09:55 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
I was totally unaware of those forums. (You mean http://gnomesupport.org/forums/, right?) Better to regard those as self-help forums, rather than expecting/demanding developer support
Yes. As I said, they seem to be "write only," as it's rare to see a response to a question. I don't expect the devs to take the time to do tech support for everybody but it would be nice if they'd at least lurk, to see what's going on, what problems people have and what their concerns are.
On 03/22/2011 08:21 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:55 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
I was totally unaware of those forums. (You mean http://gnomesupport.org/forums/, right?) Better to regard those as self-help forums, rather than expecting/demanding developer support
Yes. As I said, they seem to be "write only," as it's rare to see a response to a question. I don't expect the devs to take the time to do tech support for everybody but it would be nice if they'd at least lurk, to see what's going on, what problems people have and what their concerns are.
You'll probably have better luck on mailing lists (and bugzillas), rather than forums.
Forums are great for casual browsing at leisure, but not so good for quick scanning and filtering. Mail lists seem to work better for that. I suspect devs follow them more closely. I do. (I use google alerts to try to catch forum posts about gThumb, but that is a hit-and-miss thing. Not all forums are search-engine-friendly. I've never had an alert for a post in gnomesupport.org/forums, for example.)
- Mike
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:04 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
I mean this as a helpful guide to gaining credibility with devs, rather than as any sort of attack...
That, alas, all depends on the devs and their attitude. I use the Pan newsreader. The dev is a member of the support mailing list and listens to the concerns of the users. Sometimes it's not practical for him to change something, but when that happens, he explains why. He also makes it clear that if you're able to work up a patch that does what you want he'll be glad to look at it and fold it in if it doesn't cause other problems. Alas, he's pretty burned out on the project and looking to pass the torch. Compare that to the Gnome devs who avoid the help forum for their project like the plague, and the Fedora devs who either don't frequent their forum or do so incognito.
Attitude matters. The people who ran the Prodigy (remember Prodigy vs. AOL?) help chat still have a help chat room, even though Prodigy is dead a decade. Some people enjoy helping troubled users.
Obviously we help with Windows and Linux now, not the Prodigy services.
Rahul Sundaram <metherid <at> gmail.com> writes:
On 03/19/2011 05:35 PM, JB wrote:
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ? Is there any official statement by Fedora with regard to that ?
No plans to provide older versions. ...
This may change if things do not look right ... remember, they stopped systemd in F14 literally few days before cut-off day.
Anyway, perhaps some smart users would be willing to maintain and offer GNOME 2 via one of the alternative repos.
JB
On 03/19/2011 09:04 PM, JB wrote:
This may change if things do not look right ... remember, they stopped systemd in F14 literally few days before cut-off day.
It was more than a few days. In any case, not really a analagous situation with systemd. Providing a older version in parallel to a newer version when it is not designed to be, from the start is serious amount of work while reverting back a init system that was designed to be a drop-in replacement is much more easier. I am 99% sure that this is not going to change.
Rahul
On 03/19/2011 10:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/19/2011 05:35 PM, JB wrote:
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ? Is there any official statement by Fedora with regard to that ?
No plans to provide older versions. You can use one of the following things:
- Fallback mode which runs Metacity and GNOME Panel. You can force this
setting even if your system is capable of running GNOME Shell. Otherwise it is only enabled in systems which are not capable
Let's hope Fallback mode isn't complete yet then. I have never liked the main-menu-at-the-top arrangement with a top and bottom panel (These damn 16:9 screens don't have enough vertical resolution to begin with!), I use a single bottom panel, and I don't mind modifying things to accomplish it. I *do* very much mind having that option removed completely.
- Switch to Xfce. Which can be configured to look and feel identical to
GNOME 2.x or try KDE or whatever
Interesting. I have not looked at Xfce in a very, very long time.
- Not upgrade and see if a future revision is more palatable to you
It may come to that.
On 03/20/2011 12:51 PM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
I use a single bottom panel, and I don't mind modifying things to accomplish it. I *do* very much mind having that option removed completely.
Same here. I don't mind Gnome being set up the way the devs like it by default; that's only natural. What I object to is the growing tendency for them to make it impossible for users to customize their own desktops if it means setting things up differently than the devs.
JB wrote:
Ralf Corsepius<rc040203<at> freenet.de> writes:
There is a danger that in case of an abrupt GNOME 2 phaseout, many users and add-on devs would be lost. The damage could affect some distros as well. I hope that both GNOME and Fedora projects take this into consideration. There is a big and painful lesson to learn from KDE 4 debacle.
So, I am wondering if Fedora takes into consideration providing GNOME 2 as well (in parallel) with F15 and for some time beyond ? Is there any official statement by Fedora with regard to that ?
FC15 uses the GNOME wallpaper by default instead of the Fedora theme, does that tell you anything? It's not "official" but sure a warning sign.
On 03/23/2011 08:03 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
FC15 uses the GNOME wallpaper by default instead of the Fedora theme, does that tell you anything? It's not "official" but sure a warning sign.
Inaccurate. Fedora GNOME uses a GNOME based wallpaper and theme is the upstream one as has been for several releases. Other desktop environments in Fedora have their own wallpapers and themes
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F15_Artwork
Rahul
On 03/27/2011 09:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/23/2011 08:03 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
FC15 uses the GNOME wallpaper by default instead of the Fedora theme, does that tell you anything? It's not "official" but sure a warning sign.
Inaccurate. Fedora GNOME uses a GNOME based wallpaper and theme is the upstream one as has been for several releases. Other desktop environments in Fedora have their own wallpapers and themes
Maybe it would have been somewhat more accurate to say that the current F15-ALPHA does not yet have the Fedora Artwork integrated?
On 03/27/2011 07:49 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Maybe it would have been somewhat more accurate to say that the current F15-ALPHA does not yet have the Fedora Artwork integrated?
Schedule is at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F15_Artwork/Schedule
Rahul
On 03/19/2011 03:15 PM, JB wrote:
I have not tried F15 Alpha yet. I am wondering how the systemd, the new important feature works ? Remember, it was dropped from F14 ...
It wasn't dropped from Fedora 14. You can still use systemd with Fedora 14 if you want to. It is merely not the default in that version
Rahul
On Sat March 19 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/19/2011 03:15 PM, JB wrote:
I have not tried F15 Alpha yet. I am wondering how the systemd, the new important feature works ? Remember, it was dropped from F14 ...
It wasn't dropped from Fedora 14. You can still use systemd with Fedora 14 if you want to. It is merely not the default in that version
Will we "automagically" be upgraded to systemd when we upgrade to F15? Will all our existing init scripts be transferred over? I've got a few things that I had to manually set up under an older version of Fedora and I'm now up to F14. Just wondering if those will automagically be transferred to the new system or if I'll have to do it manually?
Thanks
On 03/19/2011 08:24 PM, John Aldrich wrote:
Will we "automagically" be upgraded to systemd when we upgrade to F15?
Yes
Will all our existing init scripts be transferred over?
Some core software have been updated to take advantage of systemd but systemd is compatible with sysvinit scripts. So for packages not yet changed, it will still work fine.
Rahul
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea - start a different branch of gnome or kde (or something new) and see which one people install the most:-).
You mean... XFCE? Or... LXDE? ... or Enlightenment (the one people claim is holy water)?
Gnome 3 will be rough as it is still under heavy development, but it should have a bright future. I am not using Gnome 2 as it is meant to be run (only 1 panel, Gnome shell-like setup) and have been doing so for over a year now.
It can NOT have a bright future, because the developers have a different vision than the users. I use Linux because it's my computer and I want the OS to help me use it, not tell me everything too dangerous. I've gone from S100 to latest chips running VMs without protection, thanks I'll pass on GNOME-3.
On 03/18/2011 03:17 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joe Zeffjoe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/18/2011 11:39 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak.
If nothing else, I resent the way they've made it almost impossible to customize your system sounds.
... and the power management madness. :-/
Oh yeah. I like keeping my system spun up all the time in case I want to connect remotely. There doesn't even seem to be an option to never spin down or never suspend/hibernate any more.
On 03/19/2011 01:18 AM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
Oh yeah. I like keeping my system spun up all the time in case I want to connect remotely. There doesn't even seem to be an option to never spin down or never suspend/hibernate any more.
Surely that cannot be true .. can it ?
I guess if it is - will switching to runlevel 3 ( if systemd actually allows it - does it????) help?
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:36:56 -0400 Genes MailLists wrote:
Oh yeah. I like keeping my system spun up all the time in case I want to connect remotely. There doesn't even seem to be an option to never spin down or never suspend/hibernate any more.
Surely that cannot be true .. can it ?
There is always kill -9 the gnome power manager daemon - I've done things like that before to "tweak" gnome before I was able to track down the obscure files in places like /etc/xinint (or whatever it is called) to turn them off up front.
On 03/19/2011 10:43 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:36:56 -0400 Genes MailLists wrote:
Oh yeah. I like keeping my system spun up all the time in case I want to connect remotely. There doesn't even seem to be an option to never spin down or never suspend/hibernate any more.
Surely that cannot be true .. can it ?
There is always kill -9 the gnome power manager daemon - I've done things like that before to "tweak" gnome before I was able to track down the obscure files in places like /etc/xinint (or whatever it is called) to turn them off up front.
Thanks.
On 03/19/2011 08:06 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 03/19/2011 01:18 AM, Chris Kloiber wrote:
Oh yeah. I like keeping my system spun up all the time in case I want to connect remotely. There doesn't even seem to be an option to never spin down or never suspend/hibernate any more.
Surely that cannot be true .. can it ?
It can be configured via dconf. I am also working on packaging a tool, GNOME Tweak Tool which exposes this via a regular graphical interface.
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeTweakTool
I guess if it is - will switching to runlevel 3 ( if systemd actually allows it - does it????)
Sure. You can switch runlevels (systemd emulates this via targets)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
Rahul
Chris Kloiber wrote:
On 03/18/2011 03:17 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joe Zeffjoe@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/18/2011 11:39 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak.
If nothing else, I resent the way they've made it almost impossible to customize your system sounds.
... and the power management madness. :-/
Oh yeah. I like keeping my system spun up all the time in case I want to connect remotely. There doesn't even seem to be an option to never spin down or never suspend/hibernate any more.
You have forgotten to power down your system... we will do it for you...
We are GNOME of Borg, you will be approximated.
On 3/18/11, suvayu ali fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:56 AM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com wrote:
If Gnome 3 is a step away from this, it might be better for Linux, but not so for those of us that have used it for about 18 years.
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak. That is one of the reasons I switched to being a full time linux user from a full time Windows user and one of the reasons why I am not comfortable with Macs.
The good thing about Macs is that they 'hide' most of the functionality, but if you get into power use, you can do amazing things with them... BTW, you can load up Linux onto them as well and Macs make adding OSs realitively easy compared to Windows systems. I'll have to see if I can shoehorn Fedora/CentOS onto mine.
James McKenzie
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 11:39 -0700, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:56 AM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com wrote:
If Gnome 3 is a step away from this, it might be better for Linux, but not so for those of us that have used it for about 18 years.
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak. That is one of the reasons I switched to being a full time linux user from a full time Windows user and one of the reasons why I am not comfortable with Macs.
I presume you're talking about Gnome, right? New releases of Linux aren't taking anything away.
poc
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
No need to go that far back in time. I am using linux for 3 years now, and I absolutely detest when new releases take away my ability to tweak. That is one of the reasons I switched to being a full time linux user from a full time Windows user and one of the reasons why I am not comfortable with Macs.
I presume you're talking about Gnome, right? New releases of Linux aren't taking anything away.
Yes I am talking about Gnome 3. It seems most of the gui developments these days are along the same lines. The situation is same for Ubuntu's Unity interface.
poc
john wendel wrote:
I thought you guys might get a chuckle from this,
My wife just got a shiny new HP laptop with Windows 7 installed. She has never used Windows before, having mainly used Gnome on Fedora boxes. After a week of struggling, she just asked me to wipe Windows and install Fedora so she can get some work done without fighting the desktop. This is when she proclaimed that W7 was, "obviously designed by morons".
I like Win7 better than GNOME-3, if you want an example of "damned by faint praise."
I guess it depends on what you're familiar with. I personally thought W7 looked very polished. I suspect it could probably be tweaked to work like Gnome, but why bother.
I assume you mean GNOME-2, hopefully someone will release a GNOME-2 spin for FC15 when it comes out. If it can happen fo XFCE it can happen for GNOME.
Regards,
John
-
Alan Cox -
Alan Evans -
Andrew Haley -
Antonio Olivares -
Bill Davidsen -
Chris Adams -
Chris Kloiber -
Christopher A Williams -
Claude Jones -
Colin Paul Adams -
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak -
Ed Greshko -
Fernando Cassia -
Genes MailLists -
Heinz Diehl -
Howard Howell -
Ian Pilcher -
James McKenzie -
JB -
jdow -
Joe Zeff -
John Aldrich -
John Wendel -
Jon Ingason -
Lamar Owen -
Lyos Gemini Norezel -
Manuel Escudero -
Marko Vojinovic -
Michael Cronenworth -
Michael Hennebry -
Michael Schwendt -
mike cloaked -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Phil Meyer -
Piscium -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Sam Sharpe -
Steven P. Ulrick -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim -
Tom H -
Tom Horsley