Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

blogs.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#131

Post by mattdm »

captainmuon wrote: post #106

I'm a bit late to the party, but what I'd like most from Fedora (and by extension, Gnome / Systemd, ... devs) is something on the meta level. This isn't meant to sound harsh, but I don't know how to say it. Please don't do the cascade of attention-deficient teenagers thing. Please take backwards compatibility seriously. And please give me a stable distribution. Stable doesn't mean a years old Firefox. CentOS is not s…

So, we are working on this, not just with Flatpack, but with a broad initiative we call "Modularity". (I know that's not the best name, but naming things is famously one of two hard problems in CS¹.) The big problem in operating systems in general is "too fast + too slow", and we are aiming to solve it. See https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/ for background on this initiative, or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqZftb2Wgi4 if you like your information in video-presentation form.

1 . Along with cache invalidation and off-by-one errors, of course

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#132

Post by mattdm »

karlmdavis wrote: post #108

As a couple of other folks have mentioned, it’s important to keep in mind that the premise of that original post was, "what could Ubuntu do better?" In that context, what you DON’T see there are the things that Ubuntu does well already, but that folks feel might be lacking in Fedora. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that a HUGE part of the reason I stick with Ubuntu are their LTS releases. Those are just super imp…

Doing an LTS release is every expensive, and since the bulk of Fedora is done by community volunteers rather than 9-to-5 packagers, it's not something we can really fairly ask.

One of the funny things we often get is "Fedora should be LTS. Or rolling-release!", which is odd because these things are generally at complete odds — no change, or constant change.

We think we have a better approach: consistent, quality-checked releases which it's easy to upgrade between. Personal anecdote: I just updated my system to F26 Alpha — started the process, went to lunch, came back and found it done. No hit to my productivity.

And, as I just mentioned in another post, we're working on another thing, [Modularity](https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/), which will allow us to provide consistent applications and interfaces across those releases.

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#133

Post by reitanqild »

sandGorgon wrote: post #130
reitanqild wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some unkNown reason, Fedora is considered "bleeding edge" and unstable.. I cannot say I never had problems with Ubuntu. But I can say I had worse problems with Fedora to the point where I gave it up. I might have been unlucky but I think my experience is as relevant as anyone elses. No Linux specialist but have used Linux since 2003-ish and started with RH 7.2 or something.

It has changed. I seriously recommend you give fedora a shot.

Thanks, will be happy to try when I get some free time.

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#134

Post by rkv »

herbst wrote: post #89
rkv wrote: post #45

I've tried running newer CentOS and Fedora GNOME environments but they always feel so much slower than Xfce or unity. When I open ps it shows gnome-shell constantly using 10% cpu and 20-30% memory. Opening menus and switching desktops is such a pain with all the delay. I found this true with Virtual Machines as well.

I run Gnome Shell on Arch and haven't experienced this. Did you file or contribute your specs to a bug report?

"gnome-shell memory" returns pages of forum posts and bugzilla tickets of people sharing the same issue; and most are left unsolved. But that doesn't excuse me from contributing my specs and trying to help the community. Thanks for the suggestion.

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#135

Post by rkv »

bkor wrote: post #109
rkv wrote: post #45

I've tried running newer CentOS and Fedora GNOME environments but they always feel so much slower than Xfce or unity. When I open ps it shows gnome-shell constantly using 10% cpu and 20-30% memory. Opening menus and switching desktops is such a pain with all the delay. I found this true with Virtual Machines as well.

It doesn't use any CPU when idle for me? It does use a bunch when switching workspaces. But after that it drops back to 0%. It should NOT use CPU constantly. There are memory leaks without any extensions, but usually it's an extension which causes the memory to increase.

I don't use any extensions. On idle, with only a terminal open it jumps from 3% to 26% CPU. I'm under the impression that it has to do with my hardware since I've tried various CentOS and Fedora versions and the issue persists.

> 31.2 26.1 gnome-sh+

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#136

Post by mattdm »

najati83 wrote: post #34

If you are reading this: I installed Fedora recently because I wanted to try it and I found the partitioning process to be absurdly complicated, compared to that of Debian or Ubuntu (ubiquity). I have several partitions of several operating systems in this disk and I was hesitant to continue because it wasn't very clear what the partitioner was about to do with my disk. Unfortunately that was months ago so I can't re…

There's basically two ways to do advanced partitioning. (Of course, there's a "just do it" automated option too.)

1. I understand about disks, volumes, partitions, filesystems, and I want to build it all up. 2. I have goals (like redundancy) and would like to tell the installer to give me that from whatever resources are available.

The former works very well for sysadmins and Linux enthusiasts (the people likely to be quad-booting or whatever), but our research showed it was really painful for basically everyone else -- so we have a UI focused on the latter.

That said, we definitely want Fedora to be appealing to the former class as well. There is an Anaconda feature in the works to add a more-traditional partition manager option as well. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AnacondaBlivetGUI (It's currently targetted for F26, but I'm not sure if it's going to make that with the current schedule.)

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#137

Post by mpol »

miloshadzic wrote: post #80
mpol wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you try Claws Mail for email? I have been using it for years and it is the best thing I ever used. Nothing comes close. There is also Sypheed, of which Claws is a fork. I consider both a 100 times better than Thunderbird.

I did but I think the setup for gmail didn't work very well and I just gave up.

I don't know, but it could very well be that Gmail deviates quite badly from the IMAP spec.

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#138

Post by karlmdavis »

mattdm wrote: post #132
karlmdavis wrote: post #108

As a couple of other folks have mentioned, it’s important to keep in mind that the premise of that original post was, "what could Ubuntu do better?" In that context, what you DON’T see there are the things that Ubuntu does well already, but that folks feel might be lacking in Fedora. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that a HUGE part of the reason I stick with Ubuntu are their LTS releases. Those are just super imp…

Doing an LTS release is every expensive, and since the bulk of Fedora is done by community volunteers rather than 9-to-5 packagers, it's not something we can really fairly ask. One of the funny things we often get is "Fedora should be LTS. Or rolling-release!", which is odd because these things are generally at complete odds — no change, or constant change. We think we have a better approach: consistent, quality-chec…

I totally get that -- and it's a perfectly reasonable stance. Every distro doesn't have to be all things to all users. Yay for distro choice!

But I'd keep my more general point in mind, too: that thread had the wrong question and the wrong audience to answer the "what should Fedora do?" question. You might try to start a similar, separate Fedora-specific thread in a few months and see what feedback you get. I'd bet it'll be significantly different.

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#139

Post by phaylon »

mattdm wrote: post #132
karlmdavis wrote: post #108

As a couple of other folks have mentioned, it’s important to keep in mind that the premise of that original post was, "what could Ubuntu do better?" In that context, what you DON’T see there are the things that Ubuntu does well already, but that folks feel might be lacking in Fedora. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that a HUGE part of the reason I stick with Ubuntu are their LTS releases. Those are just super imp…

Doing an LTS release is every expensive, and since the bulk of Fedora is done by community volunteers rather than 9-to-5 packagers, it's not something we can really fairly ask. One of the funny things we often get is "Fedora should be LTS. Or rolling-release!", which is odd because these things are generally at complete odds — no change, or constant change. We think we have a better approach: consistent, quality-chec…

I would assume LTS and rolling releases align for some people due to impact on the user. LTS gives a long time between impacts, rolling releases spread the impact out over time. I could see every-n-months releases to hit a bad spot of too frequent for the size of the impact for some people.

Re: Fedora dev: “HN feedback on what they want from their Desktop – We got it”

#140

Post by mattdm »

karlmdavis wrote: post #138
mattdm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing an LTS release is every expensive, and since the bulk of Fedora is done by community volunteers rather than 9-to-5 packagers, it's not something we can really fairly ask. One of the funny things we often get is "Fedora should be LTS. Or rolling-release!", which is odd because these things are generally at complete odds — no change, or constant change. We think we have a better approach: consistent, quality-chec…

I totally get that -- and it's a perfectly reasonable stance. Every distro doesn't have to be all things to all users. Yay for distro choice! But I'd keep my more general point in mind, too: that thread had the wrong question and the wrong audience to answer the "what should Fedora do?" question. You might try to start a similar, separate Fedora-specific thread in a few months and see what feedback you get. I'd bet i…

I actually _did_ several months ago (with a desktop and developer-audience focus): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12703836
Post reply on HN