As a Shell fan, I'm curious to see what shape this will take, but I hope it doesn't detract from perfecting Unity personally. So, I'm a bit unsure; is the Gnome Shell respin to be a community made distro like Xubuntu and Lubuntu for example, or an official release along with mainline Ubuntu?
UDS-Q Summary: Bye-Bye Unity 2D, Hello GNOME-Shell Spin and more info.
Archived thread 1978803 from Ubuntu +1 (Quantal Quetzal) (Closed). Markdown source: Ubuntu_+1_(Quantal_Quetzal)_(Closed)/thread_1978803_UDS-Q_Summary_Bye-Bye_Unity_2D,_Hello_GNOME-Shell_.md
I listened in on some of those side room sessions and I am curious. So, correct me if I am wrong.
Are the people at those sessions making executive decisions about things that will (if time and other stuff allows) take place
or, are they making decisions about what in their opinion is what should take place?
As regards the pure gnome Ubuntu, who is going to pay for it? At what point does Canonical say that it cannot fund all the variations of Ubuntu that people dream up to suit their own tastes?
Regards.
Whilst I am in favour of GNOME Shell getting a bit more attention, instead of Unity constantly stealing the limelight, I don't think an entire respin is necessary. As somebody else commented, I also only use Unity long enough to install GNOME Shell, and being an experienced Linux/Ubuntu user, this is no drama for me. But perhaps novice users could do with a slightly more obvious choice, that there are multiple desktop environments to choose from (perhaps at install time, rather than after first boot).
Also, the plans for the GNOME respin mentioned using Abiword/Gnumeric instead of LibreOffice, and possibly Epiphany instead of Firefox, and Evolution instead of Thunderbird. I'm not sure how that sits with most people, but I'm actually fairly satisfied with simply installing GNOME Shell, and continuing to use the default LibreOffice, Thunderbird, and Firefox (and occasionally Chromium).
Do we really need another Ubuntu variant? Couldn't we just reallocate a bit of Unity developer resource towards GNOME Shell and apps? Seriously, I think we have enough Unity lenses now.
perhaps a simple and concise tutorial for newbes included on the install disk would be a way to introduce them to customizing their desktops . I know Ubuntu is pushing software center but a brief introduction to synaptic would not precipitate Armageddon .
I remember installing Corel Linux and there was an option as to which DM should be set up (KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment?). Should be easy enough to add an option in Ubiquity (even if it's only under an "Advanced" menu).
grahammechanical said: As regards the pure gnome Ubuntu, who is going to pay for it?
My understanding is that financial support was withdrawn from Kubuntu as Canonical did not want to be seen as promoting both Unity and Kubuntu. The Kubuntu situation has now been sorted out with the sponsorship of the Kubuntu developers by Blue Systems. Are we now seeing what was always planned I wonder?
But as BigSilly says:-
BigSilly said: I'm a bit unsure; is the Gnome Shell respin to be a community made distro like Xubuntu and Lubuntu for example, or an official release along with mainline Ubuntu?
Official recognition of UGR Linux perhaps?
jfernyhough said: I remember installing Corel Linux and there was an option as to which DM should be set up (KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment?). Should be easy enough to add an option in Ubiquity (even if it's only under an "Advanced" menu).
But this will work only for DVD installs due to the available space on CD's - Canonical should better concentrate on a single desktop instead to invest manpower in an additional desktop spin. To get Unity running without any problems on Intel, NVidia + AMD GPU's should be on their top list and an unified installer is hard work too and for me to most interesting one.
Yes, but as an Advanced option it could come with a warning and download the necessary extra packages.
Yes for people with an internet connection that can work but not for someone who borrows a CD from someone else or do not have a connection during an install and not everyone have access to a fat pipe to download additional MB's to get a DE. On this forum people are posting with really slow connections which have already problems to do a a apt-get update && upgrade.
Gyokuro said: Yes for people with an internet connection that can work but not for someone who borrows a CD from someone else or do not have a connection during an install and not everyone have access to a fat pipe to download additional MB's to get a DE. On this forum people are posting with really slow connections which have already problems to do a a apt-get update && upgrade.
easily handled , just display a warning when "advanced options" is checked that you must be connected to the internet to enable advanced options , ubiquity already checks to see if you are connected .
Another take on this. http://www.tuxgarage.com/2012/05/quantal-quetzal-plans-uds-q-summary.html
Canonical can only accomplish so much. That they are sticking to their plans and working towards a narrower goal is wise I think. It isn't that Gnome-shell is bad, or shouldn't be offered; it really comes down to Canonical being willing to say what defines Ubuntu as a distro and being willing to financially pay for certain development. What other users are willing to contribute is always a bonus.
grahammechanical said:
Are the people at those sessions making executive decisions about things that will (if time and other stuff allows) take place
As regards the pure gnome Ubuntu, who is going to pay for it? At what point does Canonical say that it cannot fund all the variations of Ubuntu that people dream up to suit their own tastes?
- Yes, it will become a community distro like Xubuntu or Lubuntu. It was voted on, and will happen if the people who chose to work on it decide to work on it.
- They never paid for any distros but Kubuntu. KDE was SUPPOSED to be the successor to gnome, and they were preparing their funds in that direction so they would always lead the way as far as a kde-centric distro goes. Once they realized that Unity would be their longterm project and no longer KDE, they pulled out their funding for Kubuntu. They have never financially supported Edubuntu, Xubuntu, or Lubuntu. The only funding they will provide Gnome Shell Remix is server space for the cdimages and the universal upload rights. This will help Ubuntu by having the most current Gnome packages in the repos at all time, which helps all Ubuntu distros.
other "major" distros and many minor ones offer the choice of atleast Gnome or KDE and usually several other DM's .
Pure Gnome makes no sense if the default apps are worse than stock Ubuntu.
Epiphany over Firefox is a nonstarter.
Starks said: Pure Gnome makes no sense if the default apps are worse than stock Ubuntu.
Epiphany over Firefox is a nonstarter.
utility is in the eye of the beholder . Thats what this is all about, choice .
I've been using Unity for OO and PP and it grew on me. It works for me, for my setup, the kind of stuff I do. Despite the themes that have been discussed to exhaustion (some design choices, decision-making processes, etc) I find it both fair and bold that Canonical took the challenge of developing a DE. The world needs innovation, someone's gotta try something new, they did and so far have succeeded to a large extent, considering it's such a new and immature project.
However, I also understand there's a global community of current and potential users with specific needs: Lighter (yet supported) DEs and true-libre distros, different default applications and some degree of customization. That's also humanity I think.
Maybe more importantly, with the current change in discourse toward a more commercial approach and all this talk about TVs and phones, I feel it's time for the community to balance the power a little. It's healthy to question.
I wholeheartedly support this new effort, but also hope mature projects like Lubuntu, Xubuntu and Kubuntu continue to grow and receive the support they deserve.
Regards, Effenberg
From that link, I am very interested in Ubiquity features of alternate! :
Ubuntu’s Ubiquity installer will be ‘beefed up’ to provide all of the features offered by the ‘alternate installer’, resulting in the latter being dropped as a download option.
Lets hope this is a joke, if not thet it should not be installed by default. I thought Mono was dead finally and forgotten forever.
Headline from Phoronix: *Ubuntu Developers Discuss Using Mono AOT*
The two best bits of news I see in that:
Ubuntu’s Ubiquity installer will be ‘beefed up’ to provide all of the features offered by the ‘alternate installer’, resulting in the latter being dropped as a download option.
The installer will also see the Windows settings migration assistant feature removed. The team conclude that it is too untested and buggy to remain in place.
Of course that also means there will be a need for very thorough testing ;)
Also not so sure I like the idea of dropping the alternate installer altogether ............ that may hurt some users with older hardware.
kansasnoob said: Of course that also means there will be a need for very thorough testing ;)
Also not so sure I like the idea of dropping the alternate installer altogether ............ that may hurt some users with older hardware.
I've always used the live/desktop CD only as a rescue disc, and only downloaded it at specific times in the testing cycle (eg. designated alpha/beta releases). I've been burned too often (pardon the pun) with daily desktop CDs that are buggy.
The nice thing about the alternate CD is that it's pretty much guaranteed to at least get you as far as a text console, even if there is some bug preventing all packages to install successfully.
What will happen to netboot installations? Are they being relegated to the domain of "expert geeks who should go back to Debian?"
kansasnoob said: The two best bits of news I see in that:
Of course that also means there will be a need for very thorough testing ;)
Also not so sure I like the idea of dropping the alternate installer altogether ............ that may hurt some users with older hardware.
+1 on these...
I know Colin Watson is going to put in lots of time on Ubiquity, but I am concerned about doing away with the Alternate Installer (DI).
I wish I could believe that ubiquity could be fixed . Sadly I cannot believe that . I have had too many epic battles with it over the years and seen too many bugs reported and squashed only to pop up again and again and again . Ubiquity is so basically flawed that it would be far better to start with a clean slate containing no traced of any code from it .
ronacc said: I wish I could believe that ubiquity could be fixed . Sadly I cannot believe that . I have had too many epic battles with it over the years and seen too many bugs reported and squashed only to pop up again and again and again . Ubiquity is so basically flawed that it would be far better to start with a clean slate containing no traced of any code from it .
To write a complete new installer should take much more time as the usual 6 months development cycle as the current one do not support all kind of possibilities (RAID, LVM) and therefore I think to develop a new one parallel to the existing one what be much better to include and test within the RR-DEV cycle. The new BSD installer is an good example how long such a task can take. Maybe for QQ it is better to iron out all old bugs.
ronacc said: I wish I could believe that ubiquity could be fixed . Sadly I cannot believe that . I have had too many epic battles with it over the years and seen too many bugs reported and squashed only to pop up again and again and again . Ubiquity is so basically flawed that it would be far better to start with a clean slate containing no traced of any code from it .
I actually thought it was nearly perfect in Jaunty :)
They made a lot of mistakes in the Maverick rebuild, particularly dropping "use largest continuous free space", but they also added a couple of useful things such as upgrading from the live CD/DVD and offering Wubi if four primary partitions already exist.
Totally off-topic but damn, this harsh bright reddish orange in the forums is giving me a blinding headache. Is the intention to just "cull the herd" :confused:
its been pretty good in a couple of releases but then gets borked again . thats my point it isn't consistent and on any given install can't be trusted .
grahammechanical said: I listened in on some of those side room sessions and I am curious. So, correct me if I am wrong.
Are the people at those sessions making executive decisions about things that will (if time and other stuff allows) take place
or, are they making decisions about what in their opinion is what should take place?
As regards the pure gnome Ubuntu, who is going to pay for it? At what point does Canonical say that it cannot fund all the variations of Ubuntu that people dream up to suit their own tastes?
Regards.
grahammechanical, blueprints are ideas. Those ideas are discussed during the sessions. Assuming people agree and step up, work items are then typically assigned. Those work items then are intended to be done during the next cycle, aka in our case quantal. I'm hoping that clarifies your question a little bit.
To put it into perspective however, if there was a blueprint that said we should change the color of the default theme to bright pink, but we didn't invite the team(s) in charge to comment / help we're unlikely to succeed with our blueprint, even if we assign work items (and somehow manage to get it approved for a UDS session :-) ).
guitara said: grahammechanical, blueprints are ideas. Those ideas are discussed during the sessions. Assuming people agree and step up, work items are then typically assigned. Those work items then are intended to be done during the next cycle, aka in our case quantal. I'm hoping that clarifies your question a little bit.
To put it into perspective however, if there was a blueprint that said we should change the color of the default theme to bright pink, but we didn't invite the team(s) in charge to comment / help we're unlikely to succeed with our blueprint, even if we assign work items (and somehow manage to get it approved for a UDS session :-) ).
Guitara, one thing is still not clear to me: Every blueprint has an "approver" in LaunchPad.
- Having an "approved" status only means it is valid for discussion at a UDS meeting, or that is it approved for development in the current cycle?
- How is a person selected to have the right to approve or disapprove each blueprint?
Regards, Effenberg
effenberg0x0 said: Guitara, one thing is still not clear to me: Every blueprint has an "approver" in LaunchPad.
- Having an "approved" status only means it is valid for discussion at a UDS meeting, or that is it approved for development in the current cycle?
- How is a person selected to have the right to approve or disapprove each blueprint?
Regards, Effenberg
Yes, if the blueprint isn't "approved" then it won't be discussed at UDS. In my example, boldly stating we should change the theme to bright pink without any reasoning or specification is rather unlikely to be approved, and thus wouldn't even be discussed at UDS.
When you register a blueprint you select the approver. And the field is also optional -- not required. You can also make a blueprint at anytime. Specific to UDS. you can nominate a blueprint for a sprint such as UDS. I realize this perhaps doesn't answer your question (maybe it just creates more).
Have a look at this:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-q-localized-iso-community-growth http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-q/meeting/20770/community-q-localized-iso-community-growth/
It comes from Paolo from the Italian loco-team. They set out to publish a localized Italian cd and do iso-testing each cycle. He wanted to get more people involved and grow the localized iso community, and had a session at UDS about it, complete with work items. To have that session Paolo needed to make the blueprint and propose it for the sprint. That's it. He probably also contacted Jono (track lead for community) to make sure it got scheduled for UDS-q so it could get discussed. Does the example help?
Keep in mind, I am still new at this, so consider my input and thoughts as my best working knowledge :-)
Starks said: Pure Gnome makes no sense if the default apps are worse than stock Ubuntu.
Epiphany over Firefox is a nonstarter.
Well I pointed out in the session that Epiphany could be controversial. On the other hand, shouldn't a pure GNOME distro ship the GNOME web browser?
forcecore said: Lets hope this is a joke, if not thet it should not be installed by default. I thought Mono was dead finally and forgotten forever.
Headline from Phoronix: *Ubuntu Developers Discuss Using Mono AOT*
Mono isn't dead; it's just not installed by default. That discussion wasn't about adding it back to the default install; just about improving Mono for those that use it.
I wish this project takes under consideration other aspects than those purely technical ones.
For a project to exist, grow and become relevant, it needs support, positive buzz, hype, a community, etc. Otherwise it will be just another great idea that was shadowed by more popular initiatives.
In this sense, using Mono should be avoided (IMO) mainly because it's bad marketing: It pleases a few but displeases most of its potential market.
Regards, Effenberg
guitara said: Yes, if the blueprint isn't "approved" then it won't be discussed at UDS. In my example, boldly stating we should change the theme to bright pink without any reasoning or specification is rather unlikely to be approved, and thus wouldn't even be discussed at UDS.
When you register a blueprint you select the approver. And the field is also optional -- not required. You can also make a blueprint at anytime. Specific to UDS. you can nominate a blueprint for a sprint such as UDS. I realize this perhaps doesn't answer your question (maybe it just creates more).
Have a look at this:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-q-localized-iso-community-growth http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-q/meeting/20770/community-q-localized-iso-community-growth/
It comes from Paolo from the Italian loco-team. They set out to publish a localized Italian cd and do iso-testing each cycle. He wanted to get more people involved and grow the localized iso community, and had a session at UDS about it, complete with work items. To have that session Paolo needed to make the blueprint and propose it for the sprint. That's it. He probably also contacted Jono (track lead for community) to make sure it got scheduled for UDS-q so it could get discussed. Does the example help?
Keep in mind, I am still new at this, so consider my input and thoughts as my best working knowledge :-)
Hi Nick,
It did help, I never paid much attention to the UDS/Blueprint process every cycle, and am trying to understand it better.
As far as I could understand, it all goes down to the track lead (I could add my grandmother as the Blueprint approver). So my previous question should have been "- How are the track leads selected".
For UDS: I have verified that track leads are members of the UDS-Organizers team. UDS-Organizers is a team of 43, mostly Canonical employees, some Linaro, a few non-Canonical/Linaro developers and the Technical Board. The TB is Mark plus 6 devs including Canonical. So, Mark probably has the last word on who leads tracks and, therefore, who approves Blueprints for UDS.
Regards, Effenberg
effenberg0x0 said:
In this sense, using Mono should be avoided (IMO) mainly because it's bad marketing: It pleases a few but displeases most of its potential market.
Mono is NOT installed by default. There is not a good reason why the already working Mono packages should be removed just because a few people don't like it.
If you don't like Mono, don't install it or anything that uses Mono.
jbicha said: Mono is NOT installed by default.
I NEVER said it was.
jbicha said: There is not a good reason why the already working Mono packages should be removed just because a few people don't like it.
In MY opinion there is. I just posted it.
jbicha said:
If you don't like Mono, don't install it or anything that uses Mono. I NEVER said I did not like it.
Regards, Effenberg
@teejay17
This is where I go for reliable information:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/
When Mark Shuttleworth says that something is Ubuntu policy or that something is planned for Ubuntu, then I believe it.
Otherwise, I repeat the old advice, do not believe everything you read in the newspapers and I would add, or the opinions of bloggers. Like journalists they have to find something to write about otherwise they will loose advertising revenue.
Ubuntu will need a fall-back mode for some time. This is simply because machines like the ones you use will be around for some time even if all new machines are manufactured with 3D graphic capabilities.
The Unity interface will be around for some time as well. The real question is, will Canonical throw away the money that has been spent developing Unity 2D and start over again, or will they develop Unity 2D as far as it can be taken and be content with that?
This is a decision that is not ours to make and I doubt very much if this type of decision is taken in a side room of the Ubuntu Developers Summit.
Regards.
teejay17 said: I have two old ThinkPads and one old PC where the Ubuntu installation defaults to 2D and will not run 3D at all.
Will I be left out in the cold come 12.10 and beyond?
No. Unity 3d will utilize llvm so that your older machines will be able to just run Unity 3d.
castrojo said: No. Unity 3d will utilize llvm so that your older machines will be able to just run Unity 3d.
How many gpus support llvm.
Nvidia news . http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2173611/nvidia-announces-llvm-support-gpus
Ah, that's llvm the compiler, we mean llvmpipe:
http://www.mesa3d.org/llvmpipe.html
Which basically means it runs Unity on the CPU instead of the GPU.
castrojo said: Ah, that's llvm the compiler, we mean llvmpipe:
http://www.mesa3d.org/llvmpipe.html
Which basically means it runs Unity on the CPU instead of the GPU.
Interesting. Do you know what the typical overhead would be on the CPU for this process.
I've heard the same as Unity 2d (software rendering).
considering that an older machine with out an accelerated gpu capable of running compiz is also almost certain to have by todays standards an anemic cpu won't that reduce overall performance to rather dismal levels .
ronacc said: considering that an older machine with out an accelerated gpu capable of running compiz is also almost certain to have by todays standards an anemic cpu won't that reduce overall performance to rather dismal levels .
Not that anemic. My 3.3 GHz 2 GB is "sparkling fast" on Lucid Lynx, "O.K." on -3D with a definite visible lag from boot to switching windows to you name it.
On this 1.5 GHz notebook I'm using lubuntu - still no quantal i386 lubuntu iso, maybe phillinux is working on ubiquity or whatever the install code is called, which sure needs the help. Busted on my two newest pc's.
Jerry
jerrylamos said: Not that anemic. My 3.3 GHz 2 GB is "sparkling fast" on Lucid Lynx, "O.K." on -3D with a definite visible lag from boot to switching windows to you name it.
On this 1.5 GHz notebook I'm using lubuntu - still no quantal i386 lubuntu iso, maybe phillinux is working on ubiquity or whatever the install code is called, which sure needs the help. Busted on my two newest pc's.
Jerry
yours arent what I was thinking of as anemic , I was more talking about the millions of machines still running XP , 32bit and less than 1 ghz .
ronacc said: yours arent what I was thinking of as anemic , I was more talking about the millions of machines still running XP , 32bit and less than 1 ghz .
That's what 12.04 is for ;). By the time support from 12.04 ends, those machines aren't likely to be around more often than not.
castrojo said: Ah, that's llvm the compiler, we mean llvmpipe:
http://www.mesa3d.org/llvmpipe.html
Which basically means it runs Unity on the CPU instead of the GPU.
Well I hope that's the case. I don't want to lose out on Ubuntu.
castrojo said: Ah, that's llvm the compiler, we mean llvmpipe:
http://www.mesa3d.org/llvmpipe.html
Which basically means it runs Unity on the CPU instead of the GPU.
I don't get it. If -3D is being run in the GPU then why does it chew up so many cpu cycles even when I'm running full screen (like now) and nothing Compiz/GPU(?) is doing is even visible?? As reported by system monitor, Compiz is still using CPU cycles even when there's no foggy windows, no fuzzy borders, no huge indistinct icons, no overlays, no 3D effects, ... to calculate
For those who like all the eye candy, go for it. I just like having the choice of fast, crisp, clean, more processor cycles for my applications so I'm running -2D on my faster processors and lubuntu on this 1.5 ghz notebook.
No clue about "GNOME-Shell Spin and ...." Are there any running examples to try?
Jerry
pressureman said: Also, the plans for the GNOME respin mentioned using Abiword/Gnumeric instead of LibreOffice, and possibly Epiphany instead of Firefox, and Evolution instead of Thunderbird. I'm not sure how that sits with most people, but I'm actually fairly satisfied with simply installing GNOME Shell, and continuing to use the default LibreOffice, Thunderbird, and Firefox
Abiword/Gnumetric absolutely do NOT cut it with me. Example typical use is to find a health article on the internet and copy it with imbedded graphics into Libre. Anytime I've tried it with Abi it either doesn't work or sure doesn't look like it did on the internet. I also exchange spreadsheets between Microsoft Office and Libre haven't tried that with Gnumetric.
I use tons of bookmarks. Any time I've tried Chromium the things I do are a lot more complicated than with Firefox, so for example first thing on installing lubuntu is to remove Chromium which installs Firefox automatically and uses less disk space. I do like Mint having flashplugin-nonfree on the base Firefox instead of installing it on the ubuntu's. I do a lot of ubuntu installs testing...
Testing I use several pc's various linux's and also run on my wife's two XP's, my son's MAC, my son-in-law's XP, and my daughter's Xubuntu so I do all email on yahoo, aol, gmail on-line and can access my emails from everywhere using linux, Microsoft, Apple, and evn my Android tablet. All Thunderbird/Epiphany do is get in the way. I haven't gone to the trouble to remove them.
Curious to see what ubuntu development comes up with...presumably their idea was to have Unity on pc's, smartphones, tablets look and act the same which means pushing the limitations of any one of those platforms on all of them. How does Gnome shell etc. play on smartphones & tablets? Frankly, I don't see why the three have to look/act alike.
Jerry
i use gnome shell, because i like it more than unity (maybe i would use unity on a tablet but not on a pc). i use thunderbird, firefox and libreoffice and abiword and sometimes gnumeric) all is running very smooth without eating much resources (ram, cpu). as long as i've the possibility to choose ubuntu is fine for me.
I have been playing with 6.2 for the past three days.
I can not even change the icon size.
Right here is the real question.
how many people dev using Nux how many using Qt-quick ?
why is it that only canonical employees know how to use nux ?
qt-quick has had opengl es support for ever and 3d capabilities and there is doc's for it. there is no docs on how to write a nux page
Where is the doc's for Unity 3d ? I know about unity.developer.whatever ,and I also know that instructions dont work and are out dated daily. Jasons Blog is alright but Do you know who Jason is ? or the company that he works for ? I did not It took like a hour of digging.
People are right to say that NUX has no doc's because it is young. Well qt-quick has been around for the about the same amount of time. and they have Thusands of pages of docs and examples everywhere. there are 10 examples of nux work none of which are explained.
@josephmills, you may be a day late and a dollar short :-D, but are sure your problem isn't caused by the same xorg-server problem that the rest of us are suffering from?
cariboo907 said: @josephmills, you may be a day late and a dollar short :-D, but are sure your problem isn't caused by the same xorg-server problem that the rest of us are suffering from?
No I was able to get around xorg.Qtcreator I was able to finally get a good build going that I am using to try and make it look like the old tv It is fun, I like the challenge that Nux provide But after I learn the lib more I am def going to write some examples and wiki's. picture taken last night http://imagebin.org/225779