Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Feb 2012 23:23 UTC
Gnome "One of the things that the GNOME design crew have been focusing on recently is creating a new approach to application design for GNOME 3. We want GNOME applications to be thoroughly modern, and we want them to be attractive and a delight to use. That means that we have to do application design differently to how we've done it in the past."
Thread beginning with comment 506897
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
All this Re-engineering sucks
by mcpatnaik on Mon 13th Feb 2012 06:49 UTC
mcpatnaik
Member since:
2011-09-02

Software devs like to re-engineer. More so in OSS world.
Gnome ditched the rock stable 2.x when it was the most usable. KDE ditched 3.5.x when it was the most stable. If KDE ditches KDE4 tomorrow and goes for an all new set of structure before the currently stable platform becomes rock solid, I would be the least surprised.
Focus on stability seems to be no one's top priority.
A longer commitment to a platform could do a lot better for Linux users than fiddling with half-baked technology for the fancy of the devs.
We have seen examples of Pulse, Plasma, Beagle, Tracker store, Strigi, Nepomuk etc. and yet to see Wayland(I presume no remote X).
This Re-engineering really sucks.

Reply Score: 5

RE: All this Re-engineering sucks
by leos on Mon 13th Feb 2012 07:09 in reply to "All this Re-engineering sucks"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Software devs like to re-engineer. More so in OSS world.


I don't think it's that OSS devs are any more inclined to want to re-engineer things. That's an impulse most developers have. The difference is in the commercial world I can tell my developers not to and they don't. In the OSS world people just go and do it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

Software devs like to re-engineer. More so in OSS world.
Gnome ditched the rock stable 2.x when it was the most usable. KDE ditched 3.5.x when it was the most stable. If KDE ditches KDE4 tomorrow and goes for an all new set of structure before the currently stable platform becomes rock solid, I would be the least surprised.
Focus on stability seems to be no one's top priority.
A longer commitment to a platform could do a lot better for Linux users than fiddling with half-baked technology for the fancy of the devs.
We have seen examples of Pulse, Plasma, Beagle, Tracker store, Strigi, Nepomuk etc. and yet to see Wayland(I presume no remote X).
This Re-engineering really sucks.


New technology and re-engineering doesn't always means that the end result will be less stable, or that the system will be "unstable". Quite the contrary, specially when it comes to software development and new developments.

It depends quite a lot in the skills of the programmers, and if the new code base is already relying on solid and stable technologies, libraries, backends. etc.

In the case of Wayland, they're not rewriting things from scratch. Read their FAQ before spreading FUD:

http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html


Why duplicate all this work?

Wayland is not really duplicating much work. Where possible, Wayland reuses existing drivers and infrastructure. One of the reasons this project is feasible at all, is that Wayland reuses the DRI drivers, the kernel side GEM scheduler and kernel mode setting. Wayland doesn't have to compete with other projects for drivers and driver developers, it lives within the X.org, mesa and drm community and benefits from all the hardware enablement and driver development happening there.


Basically, they're throwing away things that doesn't work and keeping things that work. They're building on top of things that worked for years: GEM, TTM, KMS, Linux, etc. And they're starting with a new fresh protocol that is simple and to the point. This is great engineering.

There are cases with projects when the old code base have bugs and leaks, and replacing those parts with new code often can result in a more stable system and better performance.

Heck, how many times have we seen projects that replace other projects with new code and they end up being a lot more stable? Git vs Subversion, anyone?

Wayland developers are even talking about adding reconnection to applications when the compositors go away or crash. This will improve stability a lot.

Please let's not be so negative, I know how you feel but things are improving and changing, and this is needed for the Linux desktop to grow.

Edited 2012-02-13 09:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Wait, KMS has worked for years? There are *still* machines that it crashes every time.

Reply Parent Score: 3

mcpatnaik Member since:
2011-09-02

I really don't dislike Wayland. It skips one of my use-cases, That is remote desktop. I have been using remote rendering of X since long and with satisfaction. If tomorrow OpenSUSE defaults exclusively to Wayland (That's our pet distro) or KDE switches to it, I am in serious trouble if remoting code does not come to Wayland before the switch.
See Wayland faq http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html

Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?

No, that is outside the scope of Wayland.

My point of view is that every software project repeats a design cycle. But to adopt a new strategy even before you finish the previous goal is not professional. Goals for an iteration should be complete before you switch on to a new structure. Just don't leave users midway because you got a fancy for a new architecture.
Porting is really painful. Many good apps get lost in the switch. We don't have an army of developers fed by big money and directed by corporate vision. In OSS world we create software for ourselves. The end user is just like a family member. Let's think from his point of view. Backward compatibility is a necessary evil. If devs switch to every new and promising architecture and the old falls out of the ecosystem eventually, the community is at a loss. It is a social responsibility.

New technology and re-engineering doesn't always means that the end result will be less stable, or that the system will be "unstable". Quite the contrary, specially when it comes to software development and new developments.

Not every new architecture brings robustness immediately. Search tracker-store and nepomuk using 100% cpu in google. Let's also see the bug status of popular projects (Libreoffice, KDE, Gnome). It needs a lot of time and testing to build robustness. What happens to the user till such time? he is left with a plethora of half baked software in the name of choice. will anyone care?

Reply Parent Score: 3