6 ms·

On portability of Gnome

39 points by bkor 13y ago

bijanous 13y ago
Is it possible to port gnome to nokia smart phones or other smart devices?
- bijbij 13y ago
  Yes bijan. it is possible but it needs tremendous amount of work. :)
quarterto 13y ago
So basically, "we're not forcing you to use systemd! you can shim it!"
- bkor 13y ago
  Systemd provides a replacement for things like ConsoleKit. It further makes various things much simpler for GNOME. It provides dbus interfaces. We're not forcing, it is that we do like to share the amount of work a slight bit. Meaning: those "portability" requests are nice, but almost everyone uses Linux. Isn't it logical that after 10+ years of making things also possible on BSD, we now have Linux as main focus? All those portability claims and that there somehow good: you're just doing things for lowest common denominator. Requiring a huge amount of effort to change or develop low level bits across BSD and Linux. Now systemd comes along and does a lot of things for us. While you'd still have dbus. We now have people who solely developed for Linux and they're installing FreeBSD, that's indicative on how much development resources there are on BSD! You imply that GNOME developers (none running or knowing anything other than Linux) are bad because they're not also developers for BSD. I've seen other people claim that us focussing mainly on Linux will somehow reduce the amount of help we get from BSD and so on. Yet practically speaking, the amount of developer resource we received during most of GNOME 2.x from BSD is pretty low (mainly implementations; hal, upower backends, etc). Plus often lagged behind a bit. Recently we're making clear that we focus on Linux. We're still as open to portability as before, but someone really has to put in an effort to do this. Putting that with people who have only used Linux and mainly care for Linux is a bit strange IMO, especially after all those years. Given that *BSD often did lag behind and did eventually provide implementations, the situation has not changed much. Expect for the often repeated claim of "forcing things".
  - robinh 13y ago
    This incoherent rant as a response to a single sentence isn't really helping your case. "All those portability claims and that there somehow good: you're just doing things for lowest common denominator. Requiring a huge amount of effort to change or develop low level bits across BSD and Linux." I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
    - bkor 13y ago
      I gave an explanation on how things are, it was not a rant. I don't understand how you could see it as a rant. Regarding your question: GNOME does a lot of infrastructural work (freedesktop.org, and other things). A lot of the times things are just not available. Thing e.g. of colord (colour management), PackageKit, hal (dead :-P), ConsoleKit (dead :-P), etc. Making that work on Linux is one thing (already loads of differences). Making that work for others as well, while sometimes there is not much available only increases the time you have to spend on things.
  - rjzzleep 13y ago
    not really he's implyming gnome developers are bad, because they shut off any kind of dialog. it's kind of the same reason why gentoo folks developed eudev. who cares about bsd? you can't even use different distros anymore, because these folks are destroying the unix philosophy. wanna run gnome? sure, replace everything with systemd. wanna disable geolocation in gnome? no problem just wait for the next release http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM EDIT: Firstly this post was more about "the GNOME attitude" than systemd. However, I've already read the biggest myth post, so please stop responding with that post. So far all our software engineering efforts have lead to the conclusion that whenever a system leads to too much complexity it because cumbersome to use extend, and prone to errors. i would argue that you can build a single piece of software that is modular without splitting it into multiple parts, but systemd isn't that. In fact, a lot more companies are moving away from big monolithic blocks. No one ever said that single components should be built in a non-connected way. in fact, composability is a big part of good components. where ever did you get the idea that its the opposite? why do you think imlib2 got so successful? but hey, care to explain to me what the advantage of merging udev with systemd was?
- darklajid 13y ago
  I'd say you're right, but it seems bkor (and I feel somewhat the same) read some judgement in your summary. My summary would be So basically "We're really focusing on Linux officially now, since that's what we're accustomed with. But look at these great ports to two different BSDs!" Paired with the blog post at [1] (linked elsewhere in this thread) the situation doesn't look as ugly as people are trying to imply. 1: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851
- bitwize 13y ago
  An OS which doesn't have systemd-like functionality probably isn't very modern and is thus not an interesting porting target for GNOME. I expect the BSDs will get such functionality sometime in the near future.
  - nousernamesleft 13y ago
    You suspect wrong. Being new does not mean the same as being modern. Systemd solves a problem that doesn't exist. You are never going to see that kind of nonsense in openbsd for example.
DArcMattr 13y ago
Some background on the OpenBSD video: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851
izietto 13y ago
OMG current GNOME is really ugly
unicornporn 13y ago
Not entirely related – but god how bad Gnome 3 still looks. I was under the impression that they would make some changes to the initial UI design. I'm sure they have, but it still looks terrible. I've not found a lot of UI design that hurts my eyes so much. I always get stuck on the upper left corner and the edge curvature of the menubar at the corner of the screen (activities: http://blogs.gnome.org/mclasen/files/2014/02/gnome-on-freebsd.png http://blogs.gnome.org/mclasen/files/2014/02/gnome-on-freebs... ). I feel a bit bad when hating on open-source projects, but they really need to hear this. I'm so glad there's XFCE.
- agumonkey 13y ago
  Also the curious love for gradients(both too subtle yet distracting), faded color hues, rounded buttons and tilted tabs http://www.micahcarrick.com/images/migrating-to-gnome-3/tint2-panel-large.png http://www.micahcarrick.com/images/migrating-to-gnome-3/tint... It always felt weird to me too, but well.. subjectivity.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  I personally love Gnome Shell's look and UI. To each their own...
  - wbond 13y ago
    I agree - I was only willing to switch to Linux full time once Gnome 3 was released. I find Unity garish and Gnome 2 and KDE to be far too tweak happy with lots of ugly rough edges.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  It looks ok... much better than the hideous default KDE in my opinion. The fact that it doesn't have the functionality of even Windows NT 4.0 (after years of pruning) is the bigger problem imho.
nousernamesleft 13y ago
What a remarkably dishonest argument. The example of gnome running on openbsd is precisely because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remove all the non-portable crap. Leaving a gnome with a bunch of features gone. And notice Antoine who did that work and provided that screenshot is one of the people who thinks there is no future for gnome on non-linux systems: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00580.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00580.html
- coldtea 13y ago
  >because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remove all the non-portable crap. Leaving a gnome with a bunch of features gone. Make up your mind. Was what they removed "crap" or was it "a bunch of features"?
  - nousernamesleft 13y ago
    Why do you present a false dichotomy? The gnome team (and presumably at least some gnome users) consider them features. Those features are implemented as non-portable crap. Saying gnome works fine on openbsd and pointing to part of gnome working only after an openbsd guy ripped out big chunks of it is just silly.
    - bkor 13y ago
      In the blogpost referenced here as well as another blogpost, OpenBSD and FreeBSD developers appreciate the work that Ryan has been doing. Calling everything "crap" is a bit easy. What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME), while once only 1 person contacted them, we got a lot of cooperation going.
      - nousernamesleft 13y ago
        >What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME) Really? All the patches that were sent upstream and ignored for years wasn't contact?
mixmastamyk 13y ago
Meh. I understand the BSDs are great for server applications and that's where I'd happily use them. But the market for a free desktop is tiny--for a BSD desktop (!OSX) miniscule. I see no problem with letting the burden of maintaining ports fall on those who would use them. (Assuming what he wrote was true, that they aren't making ports to *BSD difficult.)

39 points by bkor 13y ago

bijanous 13y ago

Is it possible to port gnome to nokia smart phones or other smart devices?

bijbij 13y ago
Yes bijan. it is possible but it needs tremendous amount of work. :)

quarterto 13y ago

So basically, "we're not forcing you to use systemd! you can shim it!"

bkor 13y ago
Systemd provides a replacement for things like ConsoleKit. It further makes various things much simpler for GNOME. It provides dbus interfaces. We're not forcing, it is that we do like to share the amount of work a slight bit. Meaning: those "portability" requests are nice, but almost everyone uses Linux. Isn't it logical that after 10+ years of making things also possible on BSD, we now have Linux as main focus? All those portability claims and that there somehow good: you're just doing things for lowest common denominator. Requiring a huge amount of effort to change or develop low level bits across BSD and Linux. Now systemd comes along and does a lot of things for us. While you'd still have dbus. We now have people who solely developed for Linux and they're installing FreeBSD, that's indicative on how much development resources there are on BSD! You imply that GNOME developers (none running or knowing anything other than Linux) are bad because they're not also developers for BSD. I've seen other people claim that us focussing mainly on Linux will somehow reduce the amount of help we get from BSD and so on. Yet practically speaking, the amount of developer resource we received during most of GNOME 2.x from BSD is pretty low (mainly implementations; hal, upower backends, etc). Plus often lagged behind a bit. Recently we're making clear that we focus on Linux. We're still as open to portability as before, but someone really has to put in an effort to do this. Putting that with people who have only used Linux and mainly care for Linux is a bit strange IMO, especially after all those years. Given that *BSD often did lag behind and did eventually provide implementations, the situation has not changed much. Expect for the often repeated claim of "forcing things".
- robinh 13y ago
  This incoherent rant as a response to a single sentence isn't really helping your case. "All those portability claims and that there somehow good: you're just doing things for lowest common denominator. Requiring a huge amount of effort to change or develop low level bits across BSD and Linux." I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
  - bkor 13y ago
    I gave an explanation on how things are, it was not a rant. I don't understand how you could see it as a rant. Regarding your question: GNOME does a lot of infrastructural work (freedesktop.org, and other things). A lot of the times things are just not available. Thing e.g. of colord (colour management), PackageKit, hal (dead :-P), ConsoleKit (dead :-P), etc. Making that work on Linux is one thing (already loads of differences). Making that work for others as well, while sometimes there is not much available only increases the time you have to spend on things.
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  not really he's implyming gnome developers are bad, because they shut off any kind of dialog. it's kind of the same reason why gentoo folks developed eudev. who cares about bsd? you can't even use different distros anymore, because these folks are destroying the unix philosophy. wanna run gnome? sure, replace everything with systemd. wanna disable geolocation in gnome? no problem just wait for the next release http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM EDIT: Firstly this post was more about "the GNOME attitude" than systemd. However, I've already read the biggest myth post, so please stop responding with that post. So far all our software engineering efforts have lead to the conclusion that whenever a system leads to too much complexity it because cumbersome to use extend, and prone to errors. i would argue that you can build a single piece of software that is modular without splitting it into multiple parts, but systemd isn't that. In fact, a lot more companies are moving away from big monolithic blocks. No one ever said that single components should be built in a non-connected way. in fact, composability is a big part of good components. where ever did you get the idea that its the opposite? why do you think imlib2 got so successful? but hey, care to explain to me what the advantage of merging udev with systemd was?
darklajid 13y ago
I'd say you're right, but it seems bkor (and I feel somewhat the same) read some judgement in your summary. My summary would be So basically "We're really focusing on Linux officially now, since that's what we're accustomed with. But look at these great ports to two different BSDs!" Paired with the blog post at [1] (linked elsewhere in this thread) the situation doesn't look as ugly as people are trying to imply. 1: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851
bitwize 13y ago
An OS which doesn't have systemd-like functionality probably isn't very modern and is thus not an interesting porting target for GNOME. I expect the BSDs will get such functionality sometime in the near future.
- nousernamesleft 13y ago
  You suspect wrong. Being new does not mean the same as being modern. Systemd solves a problem that doesn't exist. You are never going to see that kind of nonsense in openbsd for example.

DArcMattr 13y ago

Some background on the OpenBSD video: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851

izietto 13y ago

OMG current GNOME is really ugly

unicornporn 13y ago

Not entirely related – but god how bad Gnome 3 still looks. I was under the impression that they would make some changes to the initial UI design. I'm sure they have, but it still looks terrible. I've not found a lot of UI design that hurts my eyes so much. I always get stuck on the upper left corner and the edge curvature of the menubar at the corner of the screen (activities: http://blogs.gnome.org/mclasen/files/2014/02/gnome-on-freebsd.png http://blogs.gnome.org/mclasen/files/2014/02/gnome-on-freebs... ). I feel a bit bad when hating on open-source projects, but they really need to hear this. I'm so glad there's XFCE.

agumonkey 13y ago
Also the curious love for gradients(both too subtle yet distracting), faded color hues, rounded buttons and tilted tabs http://www.micahcarrick.com/images/migrating-to-gnome-3/tint2-panel-large.png http://www.micahcarrick.com/images/migrating-to-gnome-3/tint... It always felt weird to me too, but well.. subjectivity.
Mikeb85 13y ago
I personally love Gnome Shell's look and UI. To each their own...
- wbond 13y ago
  I agree - I was only willing to switch to Linux full time once Gnome 3 was released. I find Unity garish and Gnome 2 and KDE to be far too tweak happy with lots of ugly rough edges.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
It looks ok... much better than the hideous default KDE in my opinion. The fact that it doesn't have the functionality of even Windows NT 4.0 (after years of pruning) is the bigger problem imho.

nousernamesleft 13y ago

What a remarkably dishonest argument. The example of gnome running on openbsd is precisely because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remove all the non-portable crap. Leaving a gnome with a bunch of features gone. And notice Antoine who did that work and provided that screenshot is one of the people who thinks there is no future for gnome on non-linux systems: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00580.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00580.html

coldtea 13y ago
>because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remove all the non-portable crap. Leaving a gnome with a bunch of features gone. Make up your mind. Was what they removed "crap" or was it "a bunch of features"?
- nousernamesleft 13y ago
  Why do you present a false dichotomy? The gnome team (and presumably at least some gnome users) consider them features. Those features are implemented as non-portable crap. Saying gnome works fine on openbsd and pointing to part of gnome working only after an openbsd guy ripped out big chunks of it is just silly.
  - bkor 13y ago
    In the blogpost referenced here as well as another blogpost, OpenBSD and FreeBSD developers appreciate the work that Ryan has been doing. Calling everything "crap" is a bit easy. What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME), while once only 1 person contacted them, we got a lot of cooperation going.
    - nousernamesleft 13y ago
      >What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME) Really? All the patches that were sent upstream and ignored for years wasn't contact?

mixmastamyk 13y ago

Meh. I understand the BSDs are great for server applications and that's where I'd happily use them. But the market for a free desktop is tiny--for a BSD desktop (!OSX) miniscule. I see no problem with letting the burden of maintaining ports fall on those who would use them. (Assuming what he wrote was true, that they aren't making ports to *BSD difficult.)