Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:56:58AM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 10/09/14 07:40, Adam Borowski wrote: I think the DebianDesktop requalification table lacks an important row: the availability of the desktop environment in question on all Debian architectures. Not everyone has been persuaded on that principle yet :P But on kfreebsd CDs we can at least override the default desktop if it's something we don't have. I just re-checked on powerpc in qemu, unlike my other setups it's not a real machine, but qemu is at least a reproducible setup without out-of-archive bits like all three of my armhf rigs. A d-i run takes two ages and three forevers, though... Powerpc is not a slow architecture, but is extremely slow in qemu. Let's discuss your other point about 3D acceleration though: llvmpipe is not a strict requirement, but I have yet to find a non-x86 opengl driver that gnome's compositor can work with. I tried: * an A10 laptop with non-free unpackaged Mali blob * Exynos4412 hardkernel, unpackaged opengl drivers * chroot on Raspberry Pi, non-free Broadcom stuff * qemu stuff has no accelerated opengl either What happens otherwise if trying to start GNOME3 (or others)? * without 3D, with llvmpipe * without both llvmpipe doesn't work at all -- not ported to -- on !x86 !armhf. Does it fall back gracefully to a fallback/flashback mode, and does that still work these days? All you get is a non-windowed screen that says: . Oh no! Something has gone wrong. A problem has occured and the system can't recover. Please log out and try again. Log Out. ` You can't even press Log Out, upon clicking the mouse cursor disappears and pressing any key on the keyboard turns the screen black, without no way out other than Alt-Ctrl-F1. According to what I read on the Interwebs, the fallback mode has been removed in Gnome 3.8, and flashback is just a plugin on gnome-shell. In this mode would it still meet the 'accessibility' or other criteria already on the Wiki page? 'Accessibility' is usually meant as being helpful to the blind, poor- sighted and those with hand-control disabilities: modes with big letters, contrasted screen elements, doubleclick and shift workarounds, etc. I'd say you'd need 'availability' or 'portability': gnome3 with a solid -1 (works only on 3 architectures at all -- 2 usably), no idea about kde, no problems for the rest. For example the Allwinner10-based laptop I had with me on DebConf 2013, I tested with xfce, but as A10 is terribly underpowered even for arm, I ended up with lxde with a bunch of programs from xfce. This worked great. Thus, it's safe to say anyone with a non-Nvidia non-Radeon non-Intel GPU will need llvmpipe. The Radeon users would need to be using non-free microcode too I guess? I'm well-armed but not well-x86ed, all my home boxes got nvidia, can't check. I'd say the default desktop environment should work on almost all setups. Yes, surely. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140911153618.ga29...@angband.pl
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On 11/09/14 16:36, Adam Borowski wrote: What happens otherwise if trying to start GNOME3 (or others)? * without 3D, with llvmpipe * without both llvmpipe doesn't work at all -- not ported to -- on !x86 !armhf. Does it fall back gracefully to a fallback/flashback mode, and does that still work these days? All you get is a non-windowed screen that says: . Oh no! Something has gone wrong. A problem has occured and the system can't recover. Please log out and try again. Log Out. ` You can't even press Log Out, upon clicking the mouse cursor disappears and pressing any key on the keyboard turns the screen black, without no way out other than Alt-Ctrl-F1. Fair enough if a Debian desktop doesn't want to support toy architectures (I don't mind use of this term). But if the above is true, it is a step further: only 3D-accelerated, or i386/amd64/armhf systems seem to get a sensible out-of-box experience. It still isn't clear to me what default desktop means or the impact of deciding one. Ultimately I think we'll be saying the default Debian _system_ is an amd64 machine, with modern Intel, Nvidia (or Radeon + nonfree microcode) graphics, running the GNOME 3 desktop, and fair enough, the Debian homepage could serve a direct link to a GNOME amd64/i386 ISO download. That install media should default to installing GNOME. Is that what we're *really* deciding with the process here? https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/Requalification/Jessie In most _other_ situations (the 1 to 20%, who knows), where that .iso is not appropriate, it perhaps won't make sense to always suggest GNOME. Maybe where I'm going with this is a tier-1 default and a everything-else default, or maybe we don't even need that. I'm unsure. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5411d7ba.7030...@pyro.eu.org
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:11:22PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 11/09/14 16:36, Adam Borowski wrote: What happens otherwise if trying to start GNOME3 (or others)? * without 3D, with llvmpipe * without both llvmpipe doesn't work at all -- not ported to -- on !x86 !armhf. Does it fall back gracefully to a fallback/flashback mode, and does that still work these days? All you get is a non-windowed screen that says: Oh no! Something has gone wrong. Fair enough if a Debian desktop doesn't want to support toy architectures (I don't mind use of this term). So you call all but two[1] of Debian architectures (14+9) toys[2]? Where has the universal operating system gone? Ultimately I think we'll be saying the default Debian _system_ is an amd64 machine, with modern Intel, Nvidia (or Radeon + nonfree microcode) graphics, running the GNOME 3 desktop, and fair enough, the Debian homepage could serve a direct link to a GNOME amd64/i386 ISO download. That install media should default to installing GNOME. XFCE has none of Gnome3's problems, and were it not a last-minute entry, I'd suggest going with Mate. Mate has the upside of having been the default for every but one releases that had tasksel. Is that what we're *really* deciding with the process here? https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/Requalification/Jessie I'd say that being available on most architectures warrants at least a row in that table. It's more important than, say, 2 points you get for a tasksel metapackage that _hasn't even worked until now_ -- the only desktop task that was even shown in d-i was task-desktop. No wonders the Mate team didn't even request one: users had the mate-desktop-environment metapackage which was for all purposes better. Until this qualification, which suddenly decided to give 2 points for this detail. So what I'm suggesting is to add the availability or portability row to the table. [1]. armhf machines typically rely on their GPUs to have any reasonable graphics performance, trying to emulate opengl in software isn't going to work. [2]. Ok, I admit hurd is a toy, so are some of -ports. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140911182608.gb1...@angband.pl
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:36:18PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: I just re-checked on powerpc in qemu, unlike my other setups it's not a real machine, but qemu is at least a reproducible setup without out-of-archive bits like all three of my armhf rigs. I'd say you'd need 'availability' or 'portability': gnome3 with a solid -1 (works only on 3 architectures at all -- 2 usably), no idea about kde, no problems for the rest. Tried kde: massively slower than other desktop environments, but works. So it looks like gnome3 is the only one that doesn't work on most architectures. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140911181028.ga1...@angband.pl
Re: Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
So it looks like gnome3 is the only one that doesn't work on most architectures. You tested qemu, not real hardware. For your tests to be really meaningful, they would have to be done on actual hardware. That said, I don't see a good reason why availability on architectures should be a deciding factor (as already pointed out by Joey and Christian). -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On 11/09/14 19:26, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:11:22PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Fair enough if a Debian desktop doesn't want to support toy architectures (I don't mind use of this term). So you call all but two[1] of Debian architectures (14+9) toys[2]? Where has the universal operating system gone? Well, Christian made reference the term in his mail, and it's something some people might use as a derogative. But I'm actually quite fond of the term. Toys still serve a purpose, perhaps an educational one, and making toys would also be a cool hobby. But anyway... XFCE has none of Gnome3's problems, and were it not a last-minute entry, I'd suggest going with Mate. Mate has the upside of having been the default for every but one releases that had tasksel. *If* most users do have modern amd64 hardware, lots of bandwidth and suitable 3D graphics, maybe it would be okay to recommend GNOME in that case? It may deliver the best possible experience on their computer. I've no problem with something like that being Debian's foremost product, even if it isn't right for everyone. But in other situations I don't think it is sensible; even suggesting it as the default seems unhelpful there. If someone uses other install media, I think a better default ought to be whatever we were able to fit on this disc or otherwise whatever is quickest to download and most likely work, and have Internet access. Is that what we're *really* deciding with the process here? https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/Requalification/Jessie I'd say that being available on most architectures warrants at least a row in that table. I think each row in that table is something the desktops should be looking to compete on and try to improve, as long as it fits with their goals. So I think it deserves a mention there... So what I'm suggesting is to add the availability or portability row to the table. What team within Debian would be the best judge of those criteria? [1]. armhf machines typically rely on their GPUs to have any reasonable graphics performance, trying to emulate opengl in software isn't going to work. I think the same will be true of old armel, and present-day mipsel systems for example. My Lemote Yeeloong can run a very productive XFCE desktop, but barely 15fps of full-screen video so I don't imagine it could handle GNOME. So it may turn out that *most* of Debian's architectures/ports can't run GNOME very well, and something more lightweight makes sense for them. But most of Debian's new users, and visitors to the website frontpage, might get a better overall experience with GNOME. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/541213aa.4060...@pyro.eu.org
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
I think there could be two distinct sets of criteria: 1. criteria for the premier desktop to suit most users - it's counter-productive for portability to be a major factor in this 2. criteria for the next-best desktop where 1. isn't practical - portability, versatility and media size are much more important here I think it is actually good to decide on a 2., so that we don't end up with needless inconsistency like: * mipsel suggesting MATE as default if it can't handle GNOME * LXDE being the default on the small CD images (for offline installs) * kfreebsd with XFCE as a default because it was for wheezy These are useful criteria for deciding what CD images we'd like, too. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54121b9c.4050...@pyro.eu.org
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On 10/09/14 07:40, Adam Borowski wrote: I think the DebianDesktop requalification table lacks an important row: the availability of the desktop environment in question on all Debian architectures. Not everyone has been persuaded on that principle yet :P But on kfreebsd CDs we can at least override the default desktop if it's something we don't have. Let's discuss your other point about 3D acceleration though: llvmpipe is not a strict requirement, but I have yet to find a non-x86 opengl driver that gnome's compositor can work with. I tried: * an A10 laptop with non-free unpackaged Mali blob * Exynos4412 hardkernel, unpackaged opengl drivers * chroot on Raspberry Pi, non-free Broadcom stuff * qemu stuff has no accelerated opengl either What happens otherwise if trying to start GNOME3 (or others)? * without 3D, with llvmpipe * without both Does it fall back gracefully to a fallback/flashback mode, and does that still work these days? In this mode would it still meet the 'accessibility' or other criteria already on the Wiki page? Thus, it's safe to say anyone with a non-Nvidia non-Radeon non-Intel GPU will need llvmpipe. The Radeon users would need to be using non-free microcode too I guess? I'd say the default desktop environment should work on almost all setups. Yes, surely. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54102e7a.4020...@pyro.eu.org
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
Steven Chamberlain, le Wed 10 Sep 2014 11:56:58 +0100, a écrit : What happens otherwise if trying to start GNOME3 (or others)? * without 3D, with llvmpipe * without both Does it fall back gracefully to a fallback/flashback mode, and does that still work these days? In this mode would it still meet the 'accessibility' or other criteria already on the Wiki page? Accessibility is independent from the actual rendering. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140910112256.gc10...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
Adam Borowski wrote: I think the DebianDesktop requalification table lacks an important row: the availability of the desktop environment in question on all Debian architectures. While that can be a minor consideration (it would be nicest to be consistent if possible), we've had different default desktops on different archictectures in past releases, and can do so again. I'd consider this at best a tie-breaker. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): Adam Borowski wrote: I think the DebianDesktop requalification table lacks an important row: the availability of the desktop environment in question on all Debian architectures. While that can be a minor consideration (it would be nicest to be consistent if possible), we've had different default desktops on different archictectures in past releases, and can do so again. I'd consider this at best a tie-breaker. +1. And that would also bring good arguments to people who (imho sometimes with good reasons) consider that toy architectures should not always set the lowest common denominator for everything. (Joss, please go out of this body!) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
