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
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
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
> 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
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 18:01, Nicolas Mailhot
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. It's
> about as smart as try
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
m
- "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?
>
> Well it would b
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 al
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
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
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 perform
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 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 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
On 11/09/2010 10:33 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> 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 p
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 com
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 int
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
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
On 11/09/2010 08:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> 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 import
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 th
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
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 '
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" 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 power management
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
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 it's their
> fault an
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, 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, 2010-11-09 at 17:55 +, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Adam Jackson 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 na
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
On 11/09/2010 07:33 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> 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 !=
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 impr
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
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 wa
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, B
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:34 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Jackson 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
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson 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 X-based GUI m
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Haley 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 clearly to
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 arc
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
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 Wa
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?
> > >
> > > Looking over the architecture page (2nd
Adam Jackson wrote:
> % ldd `which gcalctool` | grep libX
> libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x05f1a000)
> libXfixes.so.3 => /usr/lib/libXfixes.so.3 (0x001c1000)
> libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x00d42000)
> libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0
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 rendering system, but
> > there are both trivial ways to
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 transpare
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,
>
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
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 the wayland me
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
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 Wa
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
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
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+
a
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 basic
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Jeff Spaleta 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 best shot to me
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 Jackson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh (becaus
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 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,
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
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
Actually, if we go bac
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 server-oriented folks are often blessed with working directly
> wi
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 11/09/2010 06:12 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Adam Jackson 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 applicat
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:37:34PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> 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 server-oriented folks are often blessed with working direc
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Adam Jackson 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 stateless
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 brin
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,
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 s
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 technolo
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 defaul
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Adam Jackson 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 I see t
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 an
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 s
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 lang
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
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 W
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Jesse Keating 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 a
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 full
> screen tearing-free graphics both using
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
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 m
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 wr
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
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 fewe
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?
> >
> > Beca
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 certai
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones 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 just
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
N
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 lis
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
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 15:48 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Camilo Mesias 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, doesn't on others
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, Nov 6, 2010 at 02:43, 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) s
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 b
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 y
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 *
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:14:57PM +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 13:51, Camilo Mesias 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 ot
On 11/06/2010 04:16 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
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 wron
Camilo Mesias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>> Camilo Mesias 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
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Camilo Mesias 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
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 s
Camilo Mesias 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 list
devel@lists.fe
>>> 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 effic
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 13:51, Camilo Mesias 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 to provide re
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
