Enlightenment 0.22 Available For Download

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Enlightenment 0.22 Available For Download

Enlightenment E22 was quietly released on the project's website as the latest annual feature update to this Wayland compositor / window manager...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Enlightenment-E22-Released

[linuxgeex]

There's no E22 repo listed on their site. There's a link to an HTTP release mirror but it doesn't appear to be a full working release. Google-fu reveals no working pre-built ISO to check this out. There is a working release on their github account.

So for the brave, go to their github and give it a go

For the rest... nothing to see here. Move along.

[Brane215]

I use git version on Gentoo.

[raster]

There's no E22 repo listed on their site.

Did you scroll down to "Master source repositories" on the download page linked to and there is the link to our git repository front-end?

There's a link to an HTTP release mirror but it doesn't appear to be a full working release.

How is it not a full working release? Did you try to extract and build it? It's not a release mirror - it is our master download repository. I just double-checked and downloaded the enlightenment 0.22 tarball, untarred and did: meson . build; cd build; ninja .... and all builds fine.

Google-fu reveals no working pre-built ISO to check this out.

Ummmm... why would there be an ISO? We aren't making a distribution that is meant to be booted. It's software to run on an existing OS. are you really sure you know what Enlightenment is and read the website and what it's about?

[molecule-eye]

Ummmm... why would there be an ISO? We aren't making a distribution that is meant to be booted. It's software to run on an existing OS.

Fair enough, but have you thought about hosting a live image for those who would like a super simple way of checking it out? Could really reel in some new users.

[raster]

Fair enough, but have you thought about hosting a live image for those who would like a super simple way of checking it out? Could really reel in some new users.

It has crossed my mind. I did look into making an arch ISO before... it just is yet a lot more work to polish that up and make it "just work". A fair bit more. I was looking at Arch because that's what I use and I know everything works well on Arch. But it's just yet more work and I'm already spread very thinly... I think I'd do this if i can narrow down the hardware target, so I was mulling just doing an RPI3 image for example where the hardware is very much fixed and pre-determined. Then I know how drivers work etc.

[linuxgeex]

Ummmm... why would there be an ISO? We aren't making a distribution that is meant to be booted. It's software to run on an existing OS. are you really sure you know what Enlightenment is and read the website and what it's about?

You're right Carsten, I was wrong, there's a full working repo there. My bad.

You asked me - do I know what it is?

I used E16 for some time, gosh I think approaching 2 decades ago, and had good experiences.

I used E17 too when it was released, and then switched to KDE 3.x because E17 was pervasively buggy. But it had nice eye-candy in a blingy late-90's console-game fashion. [And now KDE is the pervasively buggy eye-candy that looks like a modern console game lol.]

When I saw E22 was released, I was actually pretty excited.

Let me ask you some searching questions:

Is your goal to once again spend decades working on software that, if you're lucky, a handful of developers will cannibalize for its libraries to develop other applications with, but never use for a desktop?

Do you recognise that there's no way on your site to even get a sense of what your release is about without expecting your visitors to search for a non-obvious source download, set up a build environment without any obvious instructions, fingers crossed build and install it without issues on their platform of choice when you have no documentation saying which platforms it's been successfully built on, and then maybe they can get to see what it looks like?

[Let me answer that. In your heart of hearts you know this is true because you accused me of not knowing what it was after visiting your site. You know that your site is doing a very poor job of delivering the message.]

Do you not think that is a bit of a high bar to set just to see what your WM looks like?

Do you really believe that the software you have created is so great that throngs of people will rush to blindly invest that effort, based solely on a textual release announcement? There's not even PNGs or a video.

Do you think that the countless E16 users will evangelize E22 on your behalf? Do you recognise that they're E16 users because they have avoided upgrading? Recognise the irony of expecting evangelization from that group?

You complain about the work of building an ISO.

Look at https://aur.archlinux.org/mkosi.git

[raster]

Sorry. I missed this response... found it now.

You're right Carsten, I was wrong, there's a full working repo there. My bad.

You asked me - do I know what it is?

I used E16 for some time, gosh I think approaching 2 decades ago, and had good experiences.

I used E17 too when it was released, and then switched to KDE 3.x because E17 was pervasively buggy. But it had nice eye-candy in a blingy late-90's console-game fashion. [And now KDE is the pervasively buggy eye-candy that looks like a modern console game lol.]

When I saw E22 was released, I was actually pretty excited.

OK. So you do know what it is... asking for an ISO when that is clearly not what the project is about - it's not a distribution made me wonder if you know what you're after. so i have to ask the question...

Let me ask you some searching questions:

Is your goal to once again spend decades working on software that, if you're lucky, a handful of developers will cannibalize for its libraries to develop other applications with, but never use for a desktop?

I don't really have goals one way or the other there. Not all software is about gaining the biggest audience possible. In this case it's about fitting a need. It may or may not coincide with your needs.

Do you recognise that there's no way on your site to even get a sense of what your release is about without expecting your visitors to search for a non-obvious source download, set up a build environment without any obvious instructions, fingers crossed build and install it without issues on their platform of choice when you have no documentation saying which platforms it's been successfully built on, and then maybe they can get to see what it looks like?

The Download link at the top of the website? I'm not sure how that's non-obvious. When I started with UNIX back in the mid 90's all software came as source tarballs. That is basically the job of an upstream. Then distributions may package it for that distribution. There are so many of them it's an impossible task to go make it work on every distribution. Maybe it's a generation gap thing... but this is what upstreams do - release source "tarball releases". That is their primary job.

[Let me answer that. In your heart of hearts you know this is true because you accused me of not knowing what it was after visiting your site. You know that your site is doing a very poor job of delivering the message.]

Do you not think that is a bit of a high bar to set just to see what your WM looks like?

I'm not sure it's much more obvious. The download page has links to source. info on how to build and a link to packaging status for various distributions that we can't control. Do you have any idea how hard it is to become a packager for any distribution. Even if the SW you package is your own? That's why source is released instead. It's universal and should be compileable everywhere given the right dependencies are met.

Do you really believe that the software you have created is so great that throngs of people will rush to blindly invest that effort, based solely on a textual release announcement? There's not even PNGs or a video.

I'm not sure why you think or say "you think it's so great". It may simply be that there are other priorities inside the code etc. rather than marketing? There are lots of competing factors for apps that use EFL, EFL itself and Enlightenment. Resources are spread very very very thinly.

There are screenshots. No videos, but screenshots. The very front page for enlightenment.org has one. Click on "About" at the top and there is a page for various things.. the first is Enlightenment and at the end of its blurb is a link to the full about page with more screenshots there. enlightenment.org is not just about a window manager. it has to be divided up among various things. But the screenshots are there, even on the very front page. Didn't you see them? No - there aren't dozens or 100's of them on the site. There are 2. But they do exist and are dead easy to find.

Do you think that the countless E16 users will evangelize E22 on your behalf? Do you recognise that they're E16 users because they have avoided upgrading? Recognise the irony of expecting evangelization from that group?

All the e16 users I know refused to upgrade because they don't like the changes and want to stick to what they have. E16 is far harder to find and find information for... so... I'm not sure what your point here is? I don't really expect anything from people still using E16. They have what they like. That's just fine.

You complain about the work of building an ISO.

Look at https://aur.archlinux.org/mkosi.git

[/QUOTE]

Well now. I have actually build custom arch ISO's before... they take a long time to build on even an incredibly powerful box. They are slow to test and it's a lot of work to make something polished. But then you add the work of having to SUPPORT the OS because now people ask for "help installing" or "it doesn't recognize my hw X" etc. (wifi doesn't work ... nvidia drivers not included) and so the rabbit hole opens up into making an OS. This is a vast amount of work. I've done custom RH distros, custom debian distros and customized embedded distros before. I have a fairly good idea of the work involved. It's not something I'd so lightly. It would require a fairly decent dedicated team to do well enough to really distribute and support. I'd consider contributing if there was a decent team behind one, but certainly not going to do it alone due to the work invovled.

That you mention Arch ISO's... I'm going to guess you run Arch as a result of this mention. Why didn't you just use the enlightenment AUR package that builds the latest? Why should we do more work to make an ISO or even build packages and keep rebuilding them as dependencies change on a rolling distro like Arch when AUR pkgs already do that job? Any reason you didn't look there?

[linuxgeex]

Sorry. I missed this response... found it now.

No, thanks for even responding. My only intention was to give you food for thought.

You work so hard and EFL is a big success. I just wish that E22 got the adoption that GNOME and KDE did, leading to more people working on HiDPI and squashing bugs.

OK. So you do know what it is... asking for an ISO when that is clearly not what the project is about - it's not a distribution made me wonder if you know what you're after. so i have to ask the question...

Because there are ISO build tools that can create a LiveCD image for demo purposes only, directly from a base image plus the AUR packages, in relatively short order. Ie about as fast as a Docker build. Being a LiveCD with no install option, people could check it out in VirtualBOX, be amazed, and be compelled to give it a try without jumping through a lot of hoops. Also being a LiveCD you can say this is test drive only, don't ask for support. I know you say that distro hell gets in the way, but having a working image to compare against would be a valuable tool in the hands of other distro maintainers when they take that task on. Anyhow, your time your perogative. I'm not prepared to do it so I'm not going to blame you. :-)

The Download link at the top of the website? I'm not sure how that's non-obvious. When I started with UNIX back in the mid 90's all software came as source tarballs. That is basically the job of an upstream. Then distributions may package it for that distribution. There are so many of them it's an impossible task to go make it work on every distribution. Maybe it's a generation gap thing... but this is what upstreams do - release source "tarball releases". That is their primary job.

I started in 1994 with slackware, telnet, gopher and archie, searching sunsite and mit, in the days when we had to build our own kernel to get driver support, vfat support, stacker support to access compressed files on vfat, DOSEMU v86 mode support, hand-allocation of IRQs and DMA masking... It's not the generation gap, just a lack of observation skills on my part, apparently. There was a lot of information on the page and that link didn't jump out at me. Visiting the link from Phoronix now takes me to something strikingly more readable than my previous visit. I'm not sure whether the link changed, the site changed, or I'm on crack. ;-)

I'm not sure it's much more obvious. The download page has links to source....

I guess I've gotten accustomed to the clarity of sites like Sourceforge and Github where the download link and build link are part of the release notes. Also, full disclosure, I'm dyslexic so I find pages with multiple tight blocks of tiny text pretty intimidating. That's not your fault, it's my demon and I cope as best I can.

There are screenshots. No videos, but screenshots. The very front page for enlightenment.org has one. Click on "About"...

Aha. Good job gamifying the experience! The front page has a thumbnail but clicking it doesn't link to a full resolution image. I saw the same thumb on About and didn't bother trying to click it there. Fair enough. If I want easter eggs I should be more prepared to hunt for them. ;-)

Well now. I have actually build custom arch ISO's before... they take a long time to build on even an incredibly powerful box...

I think that used to be a lot more true than it is now. It's mostly about disk bandwidth now (assuming you have an Arch mirror or caching proxy set up locally.)

That you mention Arch ISO's... I'm going to guess you run Arch as a result of this mention. Why didn't you just use the enlightenment AUR package that builds the latest? Why should we do more work to make an ISO or even build packages and keep rebuilding them as dependencies change on a rolling distro like Arch when AUR pkgs already do that job? Any reason you didn't look there?

Before I mentioned mkosi to you I did the polite thing and made sure it was compatible with your build environment.

No I don't use Arch. I did in the early days in my second foray into source-based distros... I went from Slack to LFS to Slack to RedHat to Slack to DSL to Debian to Mepis to ARK to Arch to ROCK to Gentoo to Slack to SuSE to Slax to Kororaa to Debian to Fedora to Ubuntu to Mint to Ubuntu for home use, and at work I have Ubuntu and CentOS containers atop Debian bare metal hosts, no Arch to be seen.

Arch had something in common with Slack that I liked a lot. It's possible to flag dependencies as optional, or opt out at install time and have the package manager continue to respect that. RH/Debian/SuSE's yum, apt-get, zypper show no such respect to their admins. yum/apt simply refuse, and zypper allows it but will harass you every time you use it until you let it install the missing deps. I haven't tried dnf.