Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th May 2011 18:59 UTC, submitted by fran
Gnome Something's - once again - brewing within the GNOME project. While a mere suggestion for now, and by no means any form of official policy, influential voices within the GNOME project are arguing that GNOME should become a full-fledged Linux-based operating system, and that the desktop environment should drop support for other operating systems such as Solaris and the BSDs. I have a feeling this isn't going to go down well with many of our readers.
Thread beginning with comment 473772
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sad but inevitable
by vodoomoth on Thu 19th May 2011 19:18 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

This is just that: sad.

The simple fact that someone thought of making Gnome a Linux-only thing is a failure. What about the whole freedom/open/whatnot righteous ideas that are supposed to be part of the FOSS movement? In my mind, the movement acknowledges niche players and tries to embrace them.

Turning Gnome in a single platform project is exactly what people have been booing Microsoft about. And now, some want to follow in their footsteps? How surprising. After the good and all righteous speak, comes the copying of long-decried behavior.

I'll keep to myself what I think of the systemd guy.

And this truly made my day:


The argument in favour of just focussing on Linux exclusively goes like this: why should GNOME be held back by advances in technology simply because Solaris and the BSDs can't keep up with the fast pace of development in the Linux kernel?

Sorry but it's just ludicrous, both the quote and the bold part... really, Gnome would be held back by crumbly-decrepit-uncreative OSes? I don't know Solaris but **BSDs**? wtf? Humbleness anyone? What is so technically demanding in a stupid WM that just grew fat? Let me just reply to this bag of crap by referring everyone to a brilliant comment, despite it not being totally relevant in this context: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?460396

Edited 2011-05-19 19:25 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sad but inevitable
by WorknMan on Thu 19th May 2011 19:42 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This is just that: sad.

The simple fact that someone thought of making Gnome a Linux-only thing is a failure. What about the whole freedom/open/whatnot righteous ideas that are supposed to be part of the FOSS movement? In my mind, the movement acknowledges niche players and tries to embrace them.


Well, as the article states, Gnome is a free project and anybody is welcome to port/fork it, so why don't you stop bitching and start coding?

See, that's the thing about open source... all this 'free love' and 'free choice' shit is all fine and good, but then somebody actually has to sit down and do the work, and that's where it falls apart sometimes. And when you have all these different variants of something that exist because people can't agree to do things in a uniform manner, don't act too surprised if somebody says 'enough is enough', and drops support for your personal flavor of choice.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by orestes on Thu 19th May 2011 19:52 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly. If the other OS folks want to fork it or implement the feature set it relies on then more power to them. Don't expect the main Gnome tree to do workarounds because your OS lacks the infrastructure the project needs to work properly

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by vodoomoth on Thu 19th May 2011 21:35 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Obviously, you haven't spotted enough of my previous comments: it turns out that I go against the most common trends here on OSnews. In particular, I don't drink the FOSS kool-aid. And I do think that software patents aren't the viruses some have come to believe.

So I guess my comment wasn't sarcastic enough to not appear as just "bitching".

And no, although I have an admiration for the BSD teams, it only stems from the release notes, the documentation and the looks of their source code. I've fiddled with the FreeBSD and PC-BSD, as well as each and every Ubuntu release. But I'm a Windows user 100% of the time. So no, I'm not the BSD fanboy you wish I were.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by Delgarde on Fri 20th May 2011 05:20 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

See, that's the thing about open source... all this 'free love' and 'free choice' shit is all fine and good, but then somebody actually has to sit down and do the work.


Amen to that. It doesn't mean developers should ignore the opinions of non-developers - but ultimately, they're the ones doing the work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by sdeber on Fri 20th May 2011 07:06 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, it sounds like that you shot someone in his head, then tell the judge that I did shoot him in his head, but it was him who chose to die.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Sad but inevitable
by cheemosabe on Thu 19th May 2011 20:13 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

What is so technically demanding in a stupid WM that just grew fat?


People, don't get carried away with opinions when you haven't encountered this problem. I have. I was working on a file manager written using GTK and I was considering using GIO to be consistent and portable, instead of Linux's inotify, which is really really much greater. With inotify you can monitor a directory and when something happens you don't have to read the whole directory to see what changed. Inotify tells you exactly what happened with exactly which file. I can't describe how much code I had to add to handle keeping things sorted and stuff (in a way I consider very hackish compared to then cleanliness of inotify).

It occured to me that MacOS has a huuuuge advantage from this point of view (let's compare with Apple so we can avoid the Microsoft flames). It is, in fact, on the opposite side of the spectrum. It has a very clear direction, no need to support zillions of configurations, no cruft, just the code the needs to run to do what you tell it to.

Linux is, obviously, on the other side of the spectrum. If it is to become anything of what people expect it to (year of the Linux Desktop and everything) it needs to sway a little towards the middle at least. You can't expect to win an car race with all the 16 cars you sponsor (say) out of 22, refusing to accept anything less. You can focus on one and then you can hope for something. You can help the other teams catch up with you but you need to focus on your main one.

Reply Parent Score: 10

v win a race?
by jbicha on Thu 19th May 2011 23:43 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
RE: Sad but inevitable
by cheemosabe on Thu 19th May 2011 20:18 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

What is so technically demanding in a stupid WM that just grew fat?


By the way, the reason this stupid WM grew so fat is just because it tries to run on so many platforms, and does that supplying only the largest common denominator of technologies. Something that provides what inotify does, obviously, not available on all platforms GNOME supports.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Sad but inevitable
by vermaden on Thu 19th May 2011 21:10 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18


The argument in favour of just focussing on Linux exclusively goes like this: why should GNOME be held back by advances in technology simply because Solaris and the BSDs can't keep up with the fast pace of development in the Linux kernel?


Are You fscking kidding me? FreeBSD can't keep up? Sorry but we had fully working kernel event driven hardware abstraction layer daemon called DEVD which handles permissions as well and also can 'do' actions based upon devices appear/disappear and more, FreeBSD has is since 5.0, what was the year then, 2003? It was already there ready to port anywhere with the MOST PERMISSIBLE LICENSE AVAILABLE, the BSD license, but what Linux idiots did? The first created HAL shit, later udev shit, latele U* shit (Udisk/Upower/U...) that still is not able to do these simple things that FreeBSD's DEVD did in 2003, and guess what, it still does and it even did not changed since then, not like in Linux where whole 'ecosystem' changes from every odd 'stable' kernel release

... and FreeBSD can't keep up? Can't keep up my ass :ASD

More by phoenix on DEVD:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?459128

Edited 2011-05-19 21:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 17

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by Delgarde on Fri 20th May 2011 01:25 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Are You fscking kidding me? FreeBSD can't keep up? Sorry but we had fully working kernel event driven hardware abstraction layer daemon called DEVD which handles permissions as well and also can 'do' actions based upon devices appear/disappear and more, FreeBSD has is since 5.0, what was the year then, 2003? It was already there ready to port anywhere with the MOST PERMISSIBLE LICENSE AVAILABLE, the BSD license, but what Linux idiots did? The first created HAL shit, later udev shit, latele U* shit (Udisk/Upower/U...) that still is not able to do these simple things that FreeBSD's DEVD did in 2003, and guess what, it still does and it even did not changed since then, not like in Linux where whole 'ecosystem' changes from every odd 'stable' kernel release


So if BSD had all of this wonderful stuff before Linux did, why is it that it's the Linux people introducing their new Linux APIs into Gnome? Why not the BSD people?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by somebody on Fri 20th May 2011 14:30 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

and Lennart suggested just what phoenix suggested at the end of his comment. you just need to read whole talk.

define core abstraction of systemd interfaces which are later accessed by gnome and put them into small separate solution. which gives you:
- linux already has those so it just works
- makes them available for implementation in systems that do not have those options, they just need to implement their underlaying layer. but still much simpler than complete reimplementation in the way linux does them

same method as using abstract methods in programming. what is so strange about that?

IMHO, this move would be great. define abstraction to some feature that focuses on most users and you can focus on implementation that works. but, in OSes where it doesn't work, they just need to implement requirement in underlaying layer.

instead of looking at this like "everything but Linux will lose support", try looking from other side. coding by lowest possible denominator is always slow, inefficient and barely works. not to mention code is unreadable with #ifdefs and hacks.

now enter proposed abstract interfaces. all one needs to provide is basic fall back in the start and later reimplement it correctly. my mind tells me, that no one knows better how to do that better than FreeBSD developers alone. note that if this would be done in udev/devd time, FreeBSD would not need whole implementation, they'd only need to satisfy needs from devd

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by twitterfire on Fri 20th May 2011 20:05 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


daemon called DEVD bla bla bla


What about GEM/TTM and KMS? What about UFS being the shittiest file system in use right now (if we don't consider fat16, ofc). ?

Linux guys created HAL and Udev and various init systems because they have the manpower and they can. After all, that is Linux about: reinventing the wheel.

BSD guys doesn't have the resources to reinvent the wheel and have thousands of software and libraries that to basically the same thing so they have to stick with only one software per task. That makes them a bit jelous. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by gilboa on Fri 20th May 2011 22:05 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

All nice and dandy... but I fail to see you point:

Having a comparable or even better technical solution is -irrelevant- unless someone from the BSD camp stands up and implements the required support with GNOME (or any other DE for that matter).

This is FOSS 101 - not rocket science: Unless you're willing to scratch your own itch, no-one will be doing it for you...

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Sad but inevitable
by lewkor on Thu 19th May 2011 21:34 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
lewkor Member since:
2011-05-19

Well, its the direction GNOME has been going anyway!!! Let them!!!
You hit the nail on the head when you said that they have been taking GNOME in the same direction as Windows. If a project insists on implementing the very worst methodologies in the history of computing then maybe that project does not deserve to exist!!!
Here are some examples of abandoning traditional UNIX/Linux methods in favour of more windowsy methods.
They use gconf rather than text formats. What's wrong with that you ask? When the variables in gconf duplicate those values in OS files then it is a problem. Didn't you guys pay attention in your first week of DB theory that whenever values are duplicated that they will always get out of sync. Where I ran into this was when I added users as root using useradd rather than the GNOME utilities. The result was that gdm didn't know about the new users and the new users could't login to gdm.
What is the most retarded thing about Windows? The friggin registry!!! Just go back to windows!!! Leave my UNIX/Linux alone you morons!!!
Another thing about the GNOME community is the way they can't friggin wait to get MS tech into Linux and thereby fall into the trap that is being set by MS. I'm of course referring to Mono and C#. Again, if you friggin want windows you know where to go!
I'm finished my rant now!!!
After that rant I can't see it happening anyway. If it isn't cross platform then the BSD guys will adopt KDE (Yeah!!!). Can you see Oracle putting KDE on Solaris and GNOME on Oracle Linux? Wouldn't they want a unified desktop for both systems? Combined with the abortion that GNOME 3 is turning out to be they would either stick with version 2 or fork the project. Hopefully that would kill it - the sooner the better!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by Delgarde on Fri 20th May 2011 01:36 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Another thing about the GNOME community is the way they can't friggin wait to get MS tech into Linux and thereby fall into the trap that is being set by MS. I'm of course referring to Mono and C#. Again, if you friggin want windows you know where to go!


Bullshit. There are a few people in the community who have an interest in Mono/C#, but a) they're a small minority who don't represent anyone but themselves, b) even that minority has long given up on getting the majority to adopt Mono, and c) there's not single line of C# code anywhere in core Gnome.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by somebody on Fri 20th May 2011 15:14 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

now, go and read proposal again.

systemd proposed unified interfaces to solve duplication, which doesn't impose new problem, but rather solves one. major reason why gconf came to be is simplification for developer.

another thing you failed to grasp is yours so called text configurations. they would be great ... if there would be one standard to read/write them. look httpd.conf, smb.conf and inittab. hell, there is no standard how you read/write them. enter xml and you get configurations unified. gconf is nothing but text files formated by xml spec.

try looking at s-c-t from ximian and read why it never saw the light.

personally, my biggest wish is that every project would adopt xml and also provide converter from old config standard to xml or back. everyone would be happy, those editing manually and coders who write gui tools.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by twitterfire on Fri 20th May 2011 20:16 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Well, its the direction GNOME has been going anyway!!! Let them!!!
You hit the nail on the head when you said that they have been taking GNOME in the same direction as Windows. If a project insists on implementing the very worst methodologies in the history of computing then maybe that project does not deserve to exist!!!
Here are some examples of abandoning traditional UNIX/Linux methods in favour of more windowsy methods.
They use gconf rather than text formats. What's wrong with that you ask? When the variables in gconf duplicate those values in OS files then it is a problem. Didn't you guys pay attention in your first week of DB theory that whenever values are duplicated that they will always get out of sync. Where I ran into this was when I added users as root using useradd rather than the GNOME utilities. The result was that gdm didn't know about the new users and the new users could't login to gdm.
What is the most retarded thing about Windows? The friggin registry!!! Just go back to windows!!! Leave my UNIX/Linux alone you morons!!!
Another thing about the GNOME community is the way they can't friggin wait to get MS tech into Linux and thereby fall into the trap that is being set by MS. I'm of course referring to Mono and C#. Again, if you friggin want windows you know where to go!
I'm finished my rant now!!!
After that rant I can't see it happening anyway. If it isn't cross platform then the BSD guys will adopt KDE (Yeah!!!). Can you see Oracle putting KDE on Solaris and GNOME on Oracle Linux? Wouldn't they want a unified desktop for both systems? Combined with the abortion that GNOME 3 is turning out to be they would either stick with version 2 or fork the project. Hopefully that would kill it - the sooner the better!


You bark in vain. The reason Gnome devs borrowed strongly from MS is because they have seen more value in things borrowed than in "traditional UNIX/Linux methods". If you think Windows registry is lame, than you must acknowledge than keeping settings in flat text files spread all over the file system is medieval and dumb.

And yes, C# is better for general use than Python and Bash scripting will ever be.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Sad but inevitable
by l3v1 on Fri 20th May 2011 05:35 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

What about the whole freedom/open/whatnot righteous ideas that are supposed to be part of the FOSS movement?


Well, freedom also means you are free to decide to support only one kernel, or only one OS, and it doesn't mean creating free software to suit everybody&dog's wishes.

Me, I don't really care how they decide. GNOME OS would essentially still be Linux as we know it, just with a specific subset of current technologies, maybe having the change to become better because of the narrower field of concentration for development. They stay, everything will remain as it is now, they move, things will change but we'll have another option of a tailored Linux OS.

Of course some people might feel left behind, using other kernels, toolchains, etc., but hey, there are still quite a number of desktop enviroments out there. It's not like they would take away all your options.

And again, you are free to fork the current Gnome and go ahead from there.

Again, remember, it's free software, and while you can have opinions on how some project goes, in the end, it's not up to you to demand or decide anything. Be happy that those people provide you with free and nice alternatives and possibilities for choice. Simple as that. On a sidenote, I never could understand regular users revolting when their demands (ridiculous in itself) don't get attended to.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by r_a_trip on Fri 20th May 2011 09:05 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

On a sidenote, I never could understand regular users revolting when their demands (ridiculous in itself) don't get attended to.

Well, end users are the weakest group decision wise with any technology, so demands is just a tad exaggerated. Let's call them strongly vocalized wishes.

The only power an end user has with any technology is choosing to use it or not. Whenever there are rumblings around considerable changes, it is the current userbase making clear that the current course of the technology is a strong reason to consider dropping it. It is up to the project to decide if they want to hang on to the current userbase or not.

So revolting is also a severe exaggeration. The "worst" an end user can do is abandon a technology if it doesn't suit the needs anymore. It's not like end users have forcefully removed project leaders if they didn't like their decisions.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Sad but inevitable
by sorpigal on Fri 20th May 2011 11:38 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

hat is so technically demanding in a stupid WM that just grew fat?

While I largely do not disagree with your post and its sentiment we should strive to keep hyperbole to a minimum. GNOME didn't start as a WM; it didn't really have its own WM until Metacity came along quite late in the process.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by toast88 on Sat 21st May 2011 10:10 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

"hat is so technically demanding in a stupid WM that just grew fat?

While I largely do not disagree with your post and its sentiment we should strive to keep hyperbole to a minimum. GNOME didn't start as a WM; it didn't really have its own WM until Metacity came along quite late in the process.
"

And neither is GNOME just a WM, it's a desktop which provides not just a WM but also loads of applications, applets, panels etc.

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Sad but inevitable
by Lestibournes on Fri 20th May 2011 18:55 in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
Lestibournes Member since:
2011-03-11

Lennat said (here: http://netsplit.com/2010/05/27/dependency-based-event-based-init-da...):
"Did you never get the idea that maybe nobody else is using your event-based design, because it is simply broken? (For the reasons I pointed out in my original blog story.)"

Reply Parent Score: 1