1 |
Le Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:52:14 -0600 (CST), |
2 |
Brent Busby <brent@×××××××××.org> a écrit : |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Dominique Michel wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Each software you are talking about here is a particular case. *kit |
7 |
> > is a mandatory dependency of gnome and a few other desktops/window |
8 |
> > managers. I just don't install them, so I don't have *kit into my |
9 |
> > system. You can do that even on Debian. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> For now, you can still fight it, but I have a feeling it's going to |
12 |
> be like DBus (which I don't hate, but it still makes a good example |
13 |
> for this): It will become so integrated into the way Linux works |
14 |
> that eventually, you just won't be able to live without it. Most |
15 |
> things like that I don't fight because I know you can only do it |
16 |
> for so long. |
17 |
|
18 |
It is another issue on Debian. It's called systemd. It make the kernel |
19 |
cgroups totally unusable with cpu.rt_runtime_us. systemd insist to take |
20 |
control of it, put whatever it think is good to have into the rt |
21 |
cgroup, and the machine just freeze without warning. |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> > udev have much to do with the kernel. It is still possible to make |
25 |
> > an udev free system and manage a static /dev, and I know at least 1 |
26 |
> > user that managed to do that on a desktop PC. Also, an udev free |
27 |
> > system must be the way to go for many simple embedded systems, but |
28 |
> > that's another subject. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> You can fight it, but is it worth it? My main annoyance with udev is |
31 |
> that it makes copying the image of an installed Linux machine to |
32 |
> another machine more complicated than it really needs to be, due to |
33 |
> the way it retains and depends on information about a particular PC's |
34 |
> hardware that get configured at install time. I've learned to work |
35 |
> around it, but it's annoying. Still...you can't fight upstream. |
36 |
|
37 |
That's right, but on the long run, the users will decide. It is a few |
38 |
years ago, GNU/Linux was the fastest growing OS on the desktop market. |
39 |
Today, that's not true any more, and I think mainly because users get |
40 |
tired of break_my_good_working_system.tm idiotic stuffs. It begun with |
41 |
the kde3 to kde4 move. Instead of fixing existing bugs, they replaced a |
42 |
lot a advanced applications with pale copies of them, and a few years |
43 |
later, many of these pale copies never get updated with the |
44 |
functionalities of the older versions. As example kaffeine. This app |
45 |
was the perfect TV application for an average desktop user coming from |
46 |
windows. Nothing to setup, it just worked. The GUI was a little bit |
47 |
buggy, but full with features. It remain almost nothing of these |
48 |
features in the new versions. |
49 |
|
50 |
Also sometime upstream are like the French in politics. It work in |
51 |
practice, but they ask: What say the theory? A good example of that is |
52 |
the animated png support in linux. A patch exist, but nobody care about |
53 |
supporting it into its software, that just because it is not in the |
54 |
norm, it is only an extension. It was a kde3 application that was able |
55 |
to open such files, it was one of the most advanced pic viewer on Linux. |
56 |
Now, this app is dead and if I want to open such files, I must run |
57 |
e-uae, and load some AmigaOS from the eighties into it. Tell that to a |
58 |
linux newbie coming from windows, this give that: |
59 |
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1383411 |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> > Wayland is another issue. Due to the complexity of X and of all its |
63 |
> > extensions, wayland's compatibility layer will be a never finished |
64 |
> > job, which will break hundreds of good working software. Because of |
65 |
> > that, I think wayland may be a good move for the mobile or game |
66 |
> > market, but than for the desktop, X will remain in use for a long |
67 |
> > time, at least by experienced users. Or many of these experienced |
68 |
> > users will be looking for alternatives. Some already have done it, |
69 |
> > or are in the process to do it. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> Just having big distros like Fedora and Ubuntu pushing it will |
72 |
> fracture the Linux platform even more than it already is. It's true |
73 |
> that there will still be X and users who use it, but everyone will |
74 |
> have to deal with a world where the first question about your Linux |
75 |
> install will be, "Do you run X or Wayland?" And from there, the fun |
76 |
> begins... |
77 |
|
78 |
What they are currently doing in Wayland is only half of the job. See |
79 |
above. |
80 |
|
81 |
> |
82 |
> > Another concern with wayland is windows managers. Most of them will |
83 |
> > just stop to work with wayland, and this is not an incomplete |
84 |
> > compatibility layer that will make them to work. My main concern |
85 |
> > here is fvwm, which is not only a wm, but also a tool-kit for the |
86 |
> > Xlib which let its users do whatever they can think about with it. |
87 |
> > I don't see anything like that coming with wayland. So for me, |
88 |
> > wayland is just not a viable alternative, and I am not the only one |
89 |
> > in that case. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> Totally agree. I love FVWM (and WindowMaker), and I think the |
92 |
> ability to change to a whole different kind of desktop if you want is |
93 |
> one of the greatest features of X. I have a feeling Wayland users |
94 |
> are going to end up with a desktop that's theme-able (in the way you |
95 |
> can theme a Windows desktop), but not completely replaceable with any |
96 |
> of twenty wholly different desktop/window managers. Some people will |
97 |
> say that's an improvement, since I've been hearing for years that |
98 |
> Linux should have only one desktop, but the problem with those |
99 |
> arguments is that everyone making it thinks their favorite window |
100 |
> manager should be the one. Choice is good as long as it doesn't break |
101 |
> things that used to work, so I think having a choice of lots of |
102 |
> desktops is a great thing. |
103 |
> |
104 |
Sure. What I think about wayland is simple. They want to integrate the |
105 |
wm into the server, which is a good idea, but that will break a lot of |
106 |
things. At the same time, they don't want to further integrate these |
107 |
with the tool-kit, mainly because folks from mainstream QT and GTK will |
108 |
not accept that, and are arguing this is not effective on multi-core |
109 |
processors. They can say what they want, but only 1 core at 8MHz was |
110 |
necessary to provide a full premptible OS with real multitasking and a |
111 |
wonderful GUI for that time on the Amiga. Which on a 4 cores |
112 |
processors, let 3 cores free to make something else. |
113 |
|
114 |
And more. With the hardware, we can see a new tendency slowly emerging |
115 |
on the mobile market: multi-core processors with dedicated cores. 1 low |
116 |
frequency and low power core for the standby, 1 dedicated core to deal |
117 |
with the hardware, 1 generic core to deal with the GUI, and a DSP core |
118 |
to deal with all kind of calculations inclusive multimedia. DSP cores |
119 |
and their multiple data buses have obvious speed advantages over the |
120 |
best optimised C code on general purpose cores, that for any kind of |
121 |
calculation. And back from the eighties, the algorithms are well known |
122 |
and have proved to be very efficient. |
123 |
|
124 |
Because of that, I really hope, and think, this trend will reach the PC |
125 |
market as well. And that day, some smart guys will make a Wayland v.2 |
126 |
with the tool-kit integrated into the wm integrated into the server. |
127 |
And every thing will break again. -:) |
128 |
|
129 |
Dominique |