>> Why replace GDM? >> >> - LightDM is a cross-platform solution. Ubuntu is planning to switch >> to it this cycle, and other distributions have expressed interest in >> the project. By sharing this piece of infrastructure GNOME can spend >> more time working on important GNOME components. > > I am pretty sure more platforms currently use GDM than use lightdm, how > can you claim this as a reason that lightdm was better? In fact, what > you claim here could be used as a good reason to convince Ubuntu to use > GDM, since that is what the majority uses, not as a reason to convince > the others to use lightdm, since that is only used by one relevant > distro so far, Ubuntu?
I'm not too sure what you're getting at here... My points are: - Ubuntu is going to use it, and others are interested so I think the project has some credibility (i.e. it's not just me supporting it). - LightDM is the only cross-platform display manager that I know of, so now we have a choice between a cross-platform solution and a GNOME specific one. - Shared infrastructure means shared resources. My point is not to switch to LightDM because Ubuntu is a major user. >> LightDM is aligned with freedesktop.org. > > What is this supposed to mean? This reflects I can't work out what defines a freedesktop project. I have since been told I should just state "LightDM IS a FreeDesktop.org project" until someone corrects me otherwise. >> - I am confident that the LightDM architecture is simpler than GDM. >> Some indicators of this: >> - Smaller code size >> - Well defined interface between greeter and session >> - Less dependencies >> - Less internal interfaces > > But do you support everything that gdm supports, too? Like all the a11y > stuff? Or the fprint auth, the extensibility and stuff like that? I think this is being sufficiently covered in other posts to this thread. >> - By having a well defined interface between the greeter and daemon, >> it is significantly easier to develop a greeter without knowledge of >> how display management works. This is useful as the skillset and >> motivations of these two sets of developers are different. > > But why is that a benefit? I think we want one good one, instead of a > lot of bad ones? GNOME will continue to need to maintain and improve greeters over time. I think this will be easier to do in LightDM. > Modern forms of authentication, like the biometric stuff, or auth tokens > usually need some kind of specific UI integration. Why do you think that > it is in our interest to complicate that even further, by requiring that > 10 greeters need to be updated for this, instead of just one? This would not be GNOME's problem - GNOME would only be interested in it's own greeter. > In general I do believe it is completely OK to replace existing > components with complete rewrites from time to time. I have pushed that > through myself more than once. But if you do you better have your > arguments ready for this. You must have a very good case. You must > support everything the old software you are replacing can provide, or > have very good reasons why you do not want to support specific features > (I have not seen such a list from you). You must support a lot of new > features. You must have made clear that you fully understood the > problem, you must show that you tried to fix the existing component, or > you must have a good reason why you think the current solution is so > broken that there is no value in trying to fix it. You must be able to > deal with criticism and respond to it. You must show that you can > rethink the set of problems, and that you have a good idea where you > want to go with this. You need a vision. Sure, and this is part of the process in making that case. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
