Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Well it would be mightily nice to have an infrastructure that can handle
keyboard extended keys (almost every new keyboard sold in the last
decade has one or more of those) without barfing because the original
x11 protocol designers thought 8 bits would be enough for
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:08:10PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Well it would be mightily nice to have an infrastructure that can handle
keyboard extended keys (almost every new keyboard sold in the last
decade has one or more of those) without barfing because the
Matthias Clasen wrote:
GTK+ backends are linked in at this time.
One of the things that we will need to address before switching to
wayland-with-X-fallback-for-remote-or-poor-hw becomes a realistic
possibility.
Well, I don't think that will ever be feasible for Qt apps (which, like it
or
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:54:02 +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 18:01, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
I despair of making *nix input people understand that LANGAGE ≠ INPUT
Please stop trying to derive one from the other, they are *distinct*
and one can
Le jeudi 11 novembre 2010 à 21:05 -0500, Ding Yi Chen a écrit :
Well, actually input methods can do that. :-)
They know exactly what language you are typing, and some do basic
spelling check in the language they support.
Sorry, but no. Appart from the well known stability problems, which
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 18:01, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
I despair of making *nix input people understand that LANGAGE ≠ INPUT
Please stop trying to derive one from the other, they are *distinct* and
one can (and often does) use a non-english layout to type English.
- Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 10:57 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Is Fedora for developers or what?
We want to ditch extremely useful, ground-breaking features because
of
tearing when scrolling in a browser window?
Well
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:22:02PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:05 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I'm using the experimental 3d now with gnome shell. After a few days,
it seems like it performs OK although it locks up for a few seconds
now and then. It seems to
On 11/09/2010 01:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
X will run as a Wayland client. That means all applications that support X
will be able to run remotely without change. Since QT and GTK both run on X
and virtually all apps out there are programmed to use QT and/or GTK for
most people
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:03:25AM -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:22:02PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:05 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I'm using the experimental 3d now with gnome shell. After a few days,
it seems like it performs OK
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:59 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:35:33PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
What kind of attack are you trying to prevent, and how do you envision
that interacting with the window system?
The classic is a hostile remote binary which secretly maps
On Wednesday 10 November 2010 09:21:24 Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 11/09/2010 01:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
X will run as a Wayland client. That means all applications that support
X will be able to run remotely without change. Since QT and GTK both run
on X and virtually all apps
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 09:03 -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:22:02PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:05 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I'm using the experimental 3d now with gnome shell. After a few days,
it seems like it performs OK although
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 08:43 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:43AM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/06/2010 12:21 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com)
On 11/09/2010 10:05 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 08:43 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:43AM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/06/2010 12:21 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:50:15PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:41 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Really, I have no
problem using my keyboard,
Given your location and native language, I suspect your keyboard layout
is en_US, in which case this isn't much of a
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:09 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/09/2010 10:05 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 08:43 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:43AM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/06/2010 12:21 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On 11/9/10 8:23 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I've seen the responses on the Wayland list, and it's always Wayland
isn't intended to do that. So, there's no point raising objections
there.
The risk is that Wayland gets developed and a bunch of key
applications in Fedora get broken. The Wayland
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
And what happens when all the apps are native Wayland apps and
none of those can be run remotely?
If I wanted to step back to the pre-net era, I'd run Windows.
+1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh (because it's nice
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:29 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:50:15PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:41 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Really, I have no
problem using my keyboard,
Given your location and native language, I
On 11/09/2010 03:57 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/9/10 7:23 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
At which point, it's too late. Unless Server-y people point out that
things like network apps actually matter, the default path may be to do
what will look nice on a local desktop (for the record, I can see
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
+1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh (because it's nice
technology) but you can pull my genuine networked applications from my
cold dead hands. I agree that I see this ongoing trend to move toward
things that are fluffy and
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
+1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh (because it's nice
technology) but you can pull my genuine networked applications from my
cold dead hands. I agree that
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 11:44 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think we'd like to see the Fedora community figure out its position
on the subject— so that it can tell the Wayland developers If you
continue on this track, then as things stand, Fedora will not be
making it a part of the default
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:23:22AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
At which point, it's too late. Unless Server-y people
I object strongly to this perception that nobody involved in developing
desktop technologies has any idea what server admins want. What we're
seeing is the development of
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 17:25 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:23:22AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
At which point, it's too late. Unless Server-y people
I object strongly to this perception that nobody involved in developing
desktop technologies has any idea what server
On 11/09/2010 05:13 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 11:44 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think we'd like to see the Fedora community figure out its position
on the subject— so that it can tell the Wayland developers If you
continue on this track, then as things stand, Fedora
On 11/09/2010 04:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
And what happens when all the apps are native Wayland apps and
none of those can be run remotely?
If I wanted to step back to the pre-net era, I'd run Windows.
+1 for bringing these points
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
So,
You are, in short, scared.
... I think this is a rather unfair characterization.
I don't know about that. Something new is discussed, and not everyone
understands it, and they have concerns about how it may handle some particular
cases.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
Then why are people already calling for the rejection of Wayland even
though Wayland is still far from being finished and hasn't even touched
Fedora yet.
raising concerns != screaming the sky is falling
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:27 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
B/c the perception I get is that only the desktop-oriented folks know
what users want or need and the server-oriented folks do not.
I think that's in error, too.
In fact, us
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 17:40 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
I'm wondering of I'm reading this correctly. The downsides that have
been described are quite severe in contrast to the possible benefits.
It is, of course, possible that a mistake has been made, and the acute
loss of functionality is
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 19:12 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/09/2010 06:12 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Adam Jacksona...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
+1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Jeff Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
wayland...when they feel its ready. By introducing it for discussion
before they were ready to engage in that discussion you've actually
made it more difficult for the discussion to move forward as you've
taken away their
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:12 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a
wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible
than X over the network, since the natural remoting level (surface
updates) is basically
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
- All my X apps have to be ported! Yes, if they want to be native
wayland clients, they do.
Minor correction (I think?) - the apps don't really need to be ported,
the toolkits do. Once GTK+ is ported to Wayland, fr'instance, all GTK+
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:47 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:12 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a
wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible
than X over the network, since
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:47 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:12 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a
wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible
than X over the network, since
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:44:19PM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
And where does that sit in the architecture?
Looking over the architecture page (2nd figure) it looks like the only
way to get the kind of network transparency that X has under Wayland is
to put the network between the Wayland
On 11/09/2010 06:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 17:40 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
I'm wondering of I'm reading this correctly. The downsides that have
been described are quite severe in contrast to the possible benefits.
It is, of course, possible that a mistake has been
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
On 11/09/2010 06:12 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I've mostly been watching here and I think people have been fairly
clearly about their concerns: Network transparency is important to
them, and they understand that
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 10:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
- All my X apps have to be ported! Yes, if they want to be native
wayland clients, they do.
Minor correction (I think?) - the apps don't really need to be ported,
the
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:05 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:44:19PM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
And where does that sit in the architecture?
Looking over the architecture page (2nd figure) it looks like the only
way to get the kind of network transparency that X
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:19 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:01 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:47 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
And I'm saying you can get the network remoting effect you like in X, in
Wayland. It's not built into the local Wayland
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:12 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
To the extent that those apps call (and link) only against the toolkit
and not against an assumed backend, sure. The strict linking changes in
F12 or F13 or whichever it was helped a lot with this, and gtk3 will
help more, but to pick an
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:24 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 02:14:32PM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:05 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:44:19PM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
And where does that sit in the architecture?
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
OK, so it's likely that everything will just continue to work
remotely, and people won't experience any problems. And they won't
have to run VNC just to get their favourite app to display remotely.
If this had been explained
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com said:
- We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
VNC-like remoting is a significant loss for server environments compared
to X-like remoting.
With an
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:34 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com said:
- We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
VNC-like remoting is a significant loss
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 02:28:10PM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:24 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 02:14:32PM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 14:05 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:44:19PM -0500, Brian
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 08:53:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
well, I imagine you know more about this than me, but I run with
Japanese input support at least occasionally, and my impression is that
a lot of it is a fragile tower necessitated by the fact that the deep
underlying stuff was
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:43:06PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
- We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
modest amount of additional wayland protocol (or just inter-client
conventions) you can do
I'm using the experimental 3d now with gnome shell. After a few days,
it seems like it performs OK although it locks up for a few seconds
now and then. It seems to recover and I can't see any obvious log
messages around the time of the freeze. It does survive
suspend/resume, which is great. My
On 11/09/2010 07:33 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
Then why are people already calling for the rejection of Wayland even
though Wayland is still far from being finished and hasn't even touched
Fedora yet.
raising
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:03:38PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:43:06PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
- We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
modest amount of
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 17:55 +, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a
wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible
than X over the network,
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:05 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I'm using the experimental 3d now with gnome shell. After a few days,
it seems like it performs OK although it locks up for a few seconds
now and then. It seems to recover and I can't see any obvious log
messages around the time of the
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:17:25PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
The UX will probably be somewhere between ssh -Y, vncserver(1), and:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651591
Hopefully with a better security model than 'ssh -Y'?
If this has Xpra-like functionality (i.e. screen for X)
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
No. I'm sorry but it's fundamentaly unfair to hold me responsible for the
behaviour of others. If you think this shouldn't have been brought up fine
but if others decide to draw premature conclusions from this
At least it's winter now and a hot netbook is less of a problem than in the
summer.
On 9 Nov 2010 21:22, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:05 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I'm using the experimental 3d now with gno...
You're probably not. nouveau basically has no
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:26 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:17:25PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
The UX will probably be somewhere between ssh -Y, vncserver(1), and:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651591
Hopefully with a better security model than 'ssh
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:35:33PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
The UX will probably be somewhere between ssh -Y, vncserver(1), and:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651591
Hopefully with a better security model than 'ssh -Y'?
What kind of attack are you trying to prevent, and
On Tue, 09.11.10 04:05, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
From what I've read so far you can run rootless X as a Wayland client so
you can just use your remote X apps like you did in the past next to
native
Wayland apps. Also if there is a real interest in this feature
On 11/09/2010 08:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
On 11/09/2010 06:12 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I've mostly been watching here and I think people have been fairly
clearly about their concerns: Network
Lennart Poettering píše v Út 09. 11. 2010 v 23:07 +0100:
I think you aren't even aware how broken this mix and match network
approach of classic X11 is. The semantics of D-Bus and other IPCs in a
distributed X11 session has never been clearly defined, and all kinds of
integration between apps
On Tue, 09.11.10 23:14, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
Lennart Poettering píše v Út 09. 11. 2010 v 23:07 +0100:
I think you aren't even aware how broken this mix and match network
approach of classic X11 is. The semantics of D-Bus and other IPCs in a
distributed X11 session has
That's true, using freenx to access a whole desktop works well with xfce and
no sound. I can't imagine it working so well if trying to run gnome-shell,
sound etc remotely.
I get the impression a lot of the current desktop infrastructure doesn't
make sense when accessed remotely, eg if I ssh'ed
Le mardi 09 novembre 2010 à 14:19 -0500, Adam Jackson a écrit :
When I say vnc-like I mean let's scrape the pixels out of the
rendering buffer and shove them over the wire. VNC itself is rooted,
but vnc-like remoting can be rooted or rootless. In wayland the
fundamental object of
On 11/09/2010 10:33 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
No. I'm sorry but it's fundamentaly unfair to hold me responsible for the
behaviour of others. If you think this shouldn't have been brought up fine
but if others
On Tuesday, November 09, 2010 14:23:54 Björn Persson wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
% ldd `which gcalctool` | grep libX
libX11.so.6 = /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x05f1a000)
[snip]
ldd appears to resolve dependencies recursively. I typically use
readelf to see what a program links to.
Then
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:41 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Really, I have no
problem using my keyboard,
Given your location and native language, I suspect your keyboard layout
is en_US, in which case this isn't much of a surprise - it's one of the
simplest cases (it requires one of the
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:14:57PM +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 13:51, Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
With virtualization I have more Linux machines than ever (about 50 in
active use at last count). All on my local 1GB network. Consequently
I use X to them
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:02PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 14:21 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Why throw away everything just so we can make input better?
Because those are just the examples I know where X11 has been blocking
progress for *years*.
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:28:08PM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
First I think you should probably head over to the Wayland mailing list and
get involved there. That's something I also recommend to Richard because if
you want certain features to be present now is a good time to make
On 11/6/2010 11:28, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
As for the if all apps are ported to Wayland I will not be able to use
them remotely anymore I think this is bogus. Nowadays virtually all
application aren't X application but gtk/qt applications and the toolkits
tend to support different
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 02:43, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:43AM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/06/2010 12:21 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 10:57:27AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We want to ditch extremely useful, ground-breaking features because of
tearing when scrolling in a browser window? [I do *not* see any of
I actually read it as we want to ditch features that were groundbreaking in
1975 since
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 15:48 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
[..] As much as I love Nouveau's freeness, last time I
checked I couldn't even run gnome shell on it.
I was doing that back in November[1].
It depends on your hardware. Works on some cards,
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:00 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
You mention gnome shell but not nouveau, how do you enable the missing
3d support for Nouveau? And does it only work for a subset of
hardware? I'd be interested to try it. Lately I just get:
Accelerated 3D graphics is not available
Hi,
how do you enable the missing 3d support for Nouveau?
It came with mesa-dri-drivers-experimental.
I just wanted to say thanks, I am running with this now, it seems to
be certainly more than adequate ;-) to run gnome shell. No more
akmod-nvidia for a while!
-Cam
--
devel mailing list
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:00 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
You mention gnome shell but not nouveau, how do you enable the missing
3d support for Nouveau?
There's an Mesa package labelled experimental you need to install.
I don't know what the subset of hardware it works for is, but my Quadro
NVS
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:02PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 14:21 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Why throw away everything just so we can make input better?
Because those are
On 11/06/2010 07:39 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:28:08PM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
First I think you should probably head over to the Wayland mailing list and
get involved there. That's something I also recommend to Richard because if
you want certain
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 16:41 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:02PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 14:21 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Why throw away everything just so we can make input better?
Because those
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:43AM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/06/2010 12:21 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) said:
Has anyone looked into bringing Wayland to Fedora? If not
If I wanted to step back to the pre-net era, I'd run Windows.
I wonder if there will be someone saying (when all the apps are native
Wayland apps) If I wanted to step back to the pre-stetic* era, I'd
run X
I get the impression that comparing current Fedora and Linux in
general running on varied
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:20:08AM +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
If I wanted to step back to the pre-net era, I'd run Windows.
I wonder if there will be someone saying (when all the apps are native
Wayland apps) If I wanted to step back to the pre-stetic* era, I'd
run X
I get the
Is Fedora for developers or what?
If it is exclusively for developers with the exclusion of general
purpose features such as web browsing, photo management, and
multimedia consumption then I'll have to find a more general purpose
OS. I count myself as a developer but concede that I have a life
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:51:37AM +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
Is Fedora for developers or what?
If it is exclusively for developers with the exclusion of general
purpose features such as web browsing, photo management, and
multimedia consumption then I'll have to find a more general
I believe it is possible to do photo management, web browsing and
watching video, even on the current version of Fedora.
Indeed. It's not the point that it's possible or not. I could do much
of that on a Windows 3.11 machine... Be honest with yourself, is it
every bit as good as the experience
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:51:32PM +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I believe it is possible to do photo management, web browsing and
watching video, even on the current version of Fedora.
Indeed. It's not the point that it's possible or not. I could do much
of that on a Windows 3.11 machine...
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 10:57 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Is Fedora for developers or what?
We want to ditch extremely useful, ground-breaking features because of
tearing when scrolling in a browser window?
Well it would be mightily nice to have an infrastructure that can
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:07:04PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 10:57 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Is Fedora for developers or what?
We want to ditch extremely useful, ground-breaking features because of
tearing when scrolling in a browser window?
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:51:32PM +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
I believe it is possible to do photo management, web browsing and
watching video, even on the current version of Fedora.
Indeed. It's not the point that
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 13:51, Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
With virtualization I have more Linux machines than ever (about 50 in
active use at last count). All on my local 1GB network. Consequently
I use X to them and to other physical machines _all the time_.
If there is no way
Out of interest, do you use individual shells/terms or something that
provides a more remote desktop like experience?
I use ssh -Y. Anything that sits in a huge window showing an entire
desktop-in-a-desktop is so obviously the wrong way to do it, from both
a usability and efficiency
Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
[..] As much as I love Nouveau's freeness, last time I
checked I couldn't even run gnome shell on it.
I was doing that back in November[1].
--Ben
[1]http://blipper.dev.benboeckel.net/one-soap-box/2009/11/03/gnome-day-2-gnome-shell/
--
devel mailing
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 14:21 +, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Why throw away everything just so we can make input better?
Because those are just the examples I know where X11 has been blocking
progress for *years*. I'm sure there are lots of others.
(And in any case wasn't evdev
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com wrote:
Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
[..] As much as I love Nouveau's freeness, last time I
checked I couldn't even run gnome shell on it.
I was doing that back in November[1].
--Ben
Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com wrote:
Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
[..] As much as I love Nouveau's freeness, last time I
checked I couldn't even run gnome shell on it.
I was doing that back in
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
