Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: GNOME Shell Now Works With Software Rendering!

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    AFAIK their Unity shell depends on GNOME fallback mode
    Wondering where you heard such a ridiculous thing.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Wondering where you heard such a ridiculous thing.
    I am guessing because Unity uses Compiz, and the only way you can use Compiz with GNOME 3 is through the Fallback mode?

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    FYI: That just means that FEDORA won't blow it out of the water. Unfortunately, they don't speak for GNOME. This is just the excuse that GNOME needs to screw everybody over.
    You do realize that many of the Fedora developers wear many hats, right? That many people involved in Fedora also work on GNOME? That Red Hat and Novel are the main contributors and backers to the GNOME project?

    You do realize that William Jon McCann is a Red Hat employee right? So I think it is a fairly safe assumption that if Fedora says it will still be around, GNOME says it will still be around.

    And I highly doubt that the Fallback was under any real threat anyway, as it is not that hard to maintain, and will still be the only option for older hardware like my brother's Dell Latitude D600. Do you really think his 1.6 GHz Intel CPU is going to be capable of running the Shell? They would have better luck getting it running on his Radeon 9000 IGP first, even though it is using an older Classic Mesa driver...

    This belief that the Gnome developers have this kind of disdain for the Fallback is also miss-founded, a lot of work was put into it, and while they may be excited about their new Shell, and want it to run on as many systems as possible, that does not mean they want to kill the Fallback. The need for a Fallback that does not require Mutter has been a part of the Gnome 3 design doc for a long time, with them originally thinking of integrating Gnome 2 itself for this purpose, until getting the more sensible idea of porting the Panel to Gnome 3 infrastructure.

    It is simply not going to go away overnight...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I am guessing because Unity uses Compiz, and the only way you can use Compiz with GNOME 3 is through the Fallback mode?



    You do realize that many of the Fedora developers wear many hats, right? That many people involved in Fedora also work on GNOME? That Red Hat and Novel are the main contributors and backers to the GNOME project?

    You do realize that William Jon McCann is a Red Hat employee right? So I think it is a fairly safe assumption that if Fedora says it will still be around, GNOME says it will still be around.

    And I highly doubt that the Fallback was under any real threat anyway, as it is not that hard to maintain, and will still be the only option for older hardware like my brother's Dell Latitude D600. Do you really think his 1.6 GHz Intel CPU is going to be capable of running the Shell? They would have better luck getting it running on his Radeon 9000 IGP first, even though it is using an older Classic Mesa driver...

    This belief that the Gnome developers have this kind of disdain for the Fallback is also miss-founded, a lot of work was put into it, and while they may be excited about their new Shell, and want it to run on as many systems as possible, that does not mean they want to kill the Fallback. The need for a Fallback that does not require Mutter has been a part of the Gnome 3 design doc for a long time, with them originally thinking of integrating Gnome 2 itself for this purpose, until getting the more sensible idea of porting the Panel to Gnome 3 infrastructure.

    It is simply not going to go away overnight...
    They've crippled it in gnome3, and have publicly stated (I'm too lazy to look it up and link to it) that they will be crippling it more and chopping it off at earliest opportunity.

    And just because there are people from RH working on it doesn't mean that ONLY people from RH are responsible for it.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    They've crippled it in gnome3, and have publicly stated (I'm too lazy to look it up and link to it) that they will be crippling it more and chopping it off at earliest opportunity.
    What do you mean by crippled? What more do you want from it? Bonobo support? Because that is the only thing that is really missing from the old Gnome Panel. And even then, that was handled by a compatibly layer in later versions of Gnome 2.x as it was considered archaic and obsolete even then. Gnome 3, as a major architectural change, was the right time to cut off support for it. You can not carry obsolete technologies on forever.

    And unless you provide a link I simply can not believe your claims as it goes against everything that I have read and everything they seem to have done already to the Fallback mode. Over the past year they have put MORE features into it, fixed bugs in the Gnome Panel, done some theme tweaks, ported all of the official Gnome applets, and have kept it in sync with changes in other parts of the Gnome stack.

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    And just because there are people from RH working on it doesn't mean that ONLY people from RH are responsible for it.
    That was not what I actually said, but there are enough Red Hat employees behind GNOME that one can assume that they know what they are talking about with regards to the project. And there are other vested interests in keeping the Fallback mode around, so it would still be impractical to remove it, and I think the Gnome developers realize this.

    Seriously, this is going from having a personal dislike for the modern DE (which is fair enough) to absolute paranoia, which is making me begin to understand why some Gnome developers might just feel somewhat attacked by some of their user community. You can not expect them to be fully reasonable unless the detractors act reasonable to to them in return.
    Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 11-04-2011 at 02:21 PM.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    These are good news for anybody else, but horrible news for Ubuntu. AFAIK their Unity shell depends on GNOME fallback mode, so, if GNOME fallback mode itself falls into irrelevance, so does Ubuntu and their non-Unity-bar UI parts. Ubuntu would have to choose between non-maintained software (GNOME 2.24), abandoned software (GNOME 3 fallback mode) or GNOME Shell.
    I don't believe that's true. GNOME's 'fallback mode' really consists of metacity and gnome-panel, neither of which is part of Unity. Unity builds on the non-shell parts of GNOME.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    And I highly doubt that the Fallback was under any real threat anyway, as it is not that hard to maintain, and will still be the only option for older hardware like my brother's Dell Latitude D600. Do you really think his 1.6 GHz Intel CPU is going to be capable of running the Shell? They would have better luck getting it running on his Radeon 9000 IGP first, even though it is using an older Classic Mesa driver...
    I haven't seen the code yet, but it may be. GNOME really doesn't need a lot of power for the effects it implements. Ajax first tested it in a VM *using Cirrus / VNC*, which is a lot slower than qxl / SPICE, and still found the performance acceptable; if it can run acceptably on that 'hardware' it may well run okay on even pretty old real world hardware. I guess we'll find out when it lands.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    I haven't seen the code yet, but it may be. GNOME really doesn't need a lot of power for the effects it implements. Ajax first tested it in a VM *using Cirrus / VNC*, which is a lot slower than qxl / SPICE, and still found the performance acceptable; if it can run acceptably on that 'hardware' it may well run okay on even pretty old real world hardware. I guess we'll find out when it lands.
    What about laptops? While I like gnome-shell and my CPU/GPU combo have no problem with gnome-shell, I've found that it uses more cpu cycles and watts than fallback mode when displaying non-fullscreen video and just plain scrolling in Firefox. So for me it's fallback mode unfortunately.

  8. #18

    Default

    Gnome3/Shell and all of its proponents can go die in a fire. Like compositing it brings nothing useful and only eats more resources and time. The only things that need accelerating are my transcodes, games, playback and flash.

    The DE should be only about maximum functionality and minimum fluff but Gnome and KDE are pulling an iOS on us and doing the opposite, giving us tons of fluff and cutting back on functionality, us Mac users immune to the Reality Distortion Feild already loathe that Apple is making OS X more like iOS to the point that they are looking to axe the Pro market that they where built on just to appease a bunch of morons too stupid to use the Finder...

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    The DE should be only about maximum functionality and minimum fluff but Gnome and KDE are pulling an iOS on us...
    Actually KDE is flexible enough to adapt to needs like that. Just remove everything from default desktop including panels, put Task manager in one corner, systray in other, and there you have it - minimalistic, yet still functional desktop. Or you can even have on desktop nothing but wallpaper and run everything from KRunner and Yakuake.

    I don't have any widgets on my KDE desktop, but I have two panels containing everything I need - launchers with quite small icons, systray, weather report, network, CPU and RAM monitors. Even online radio station player is there. Don't know about GNOME 3, but 2.x can also have everything in panels. Comparing all that to iOS is just silly.

    As for the topic, software compositing is there just to ensure that GNOME 3 will be usable regardless of hardware it runs on. Currently compositing is a requirement for GNOME Shell to run at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •