Will/should there be separate or slightly more qualified requirements for i686? Either hardware 3D support, or an age bracket?
I ask because I dug out a 10 year old Dell laptop from storage and it meets the current requirements: 2GB RAM, 60GB drive, 1.7GHz CPU.
But with AMD RV250/M9 GL FireGL 9000/Radeon 9000, the journal reports: gnome-session-is-accelerated: No hardware 3D support.
While gdm comes up, gnome-shell crashes (this is TC6). With my QA hat on, I'd say if it worked, I'd use it against some of the test cases; the fact it doesn't and i686 is (probably?) going away soon anyway makes me think "if it works, bonus; if it doesn't, give up while you still can" sort of attitude.
Chris Murphy
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
Will/should there be separate or slightly more qualified requirements for i686? Either hardware 3D support, or an age bracket?
I ask because I dug out a 10 year old Dell laptop from storage and it meets the current requirements: 2GB RAM, 60GB drive, 1.7GHz CPU.
But with AMD RV250/M9 GL FireGL 9000/Radeon 9000, the journal reports: gnome-session-is-accelerated: No hardware 3D support.
While gdm comes up, gnome-shell crashes (this is TC6). With my QA hat on, I'd say if it worked, I'd use it against some of the test cases; the fact it doesn't and i686 is (probably?) going away soon anyway makes me think "if it works, bonus; if it doesn't, give up while you still can" sort of attitude.
There is no reason for it to crash just because you are running i686. But "it crashed" is not enough information to fix things. Get a backtrace and file a bug please.
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:25 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Will/should there be separate or slightly more qualified requirements for i686? Either hardware 3D support, or an age bracket?
I ask because I dug out a 10 year old Dell laptop from storage and it meets the current requirements: 2GB RAM, 60GB drive, 1.7GHz CPU.
But with AMD RV250/M9 GL FireGL 9000/Radeon 9000, the journal reports: gnome-session-is-accelerated: No hardware 3D support.
This is because of a blacklist in /usr/share/gnome-session/hardware-compatibility - I don't remember at this point why pre-R300 Radeon is blacklisted... as far as I know things *should* work. Theories:
* old Radeons typically have very small amounts of on-board video memory - 64MB is practically speaking pretty much the minimum that is going to work well. * Even several years ago when we created that file, we didn't feel like we had enough testing on R[12]xx to have any confidence in the drivers. * Some bug encountered in the past that may or may not have been fixed. * AGP, ugh, don't want to deal.
You can try commenting out the relevant line in that file and see what happens.
While gdm comes up, gnome-shell crashes (this is TC6).
This is definitely not expected; since hardware support is disabled, you will have llmvpipe rendering, just like is used, e.g., when running Fedora in a VM. (i686 Fedora in a VM seems to work just fine.)
With my QA hat on, I'd say if it worked, I'd use it against some of the test cases; the fact it doesn't and i686 is (probably?) going away soon anyway makes me think "if it works, bonus; if it doesn't, give up while you still can" sort of attitude.
Our current thinking is that this system is marginal, but within the system requirements and any crashes are bugs we should fix.
- Owen
On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Owen Taylor otaylor@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 14:25 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Will/should there be separate or slightly more qualified requirements for i686? Either hardware 3D support, or an age bracket?
I ask because I dug out a 10 year old Dell laptop from storage and it meets the current requirements: 2GB RAM, 60GB drive, 1.7GHz CPU.
But with AMD RV250/M9 GL FireGL 9000/Radeon 9000, the journal reports: gnome-session-is-accelerated: No hardware 3D support.
This is because of a blacklist in /usr/share/gnome-session/hardware-compatibility - I don't remember at this point why pre-R300 Radeon is blacklisted... as far as I know things *should* work. Theories:
- old Radeons typically have very small amounts of on-board video
memory - 64MB is practically speaking pretty much the minimum that is going to work well.
- Even several years ago when we created that file, we didn't feel like
we had enough testing on R[12]xx to have any confidence in the drivers.
- Some bug encountered in the past that may or may not have been fixed.
- AGP, ugh, don't want to deal.
You can try commenting out the relevant line in that file and see what happens.
OK thanks.
While gdm comes up, gnome-shell crashes (this is TC6).
This is definitely not expected; since hardware support is disabled, you will have llmvpipe rendering, just like is used, e.g., when running Fedora in a VM. (i686 Fedora in a VM seems to work just fine.)
I failed to mention that gnome-shell comes up fine from the USB stick, I can run anaconda and install TC5, but the crashes happen on reboot from a successful install. So that's odd, but obviously a bug.
With my QA hat on, I'd say if it worked, I'd use it against some of the test cases; the fact it doesn't and i686 is (probably?) going away soon anyway makes me think "if it works, bonus; if it doesn't, give up while you still can" sort of attitude.
Our current thinking is that this system is marginal, but within the system requirements and any crashes are bugs we should fix.
OK good.
Is it practical and beneficial to draw some line in the sand around "marginal" or "not supported", even if i686 hardware has 2GB RAM, and at least 10GB free space on the drive? Or is it literally anything i686 ought to work? (Allowing that maybe wireless might not work, or it may be slow due to no hardware 3D acceleration and just plain being really old.)
Chris Murphy
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
[...] Is it practical and beneficial to draw some line in the sand around "marginal" or "not supported", even if i686 hardware has 2GB RAM, and at least 10GB free space on the drive? Or is it literally anything i686 ought to work? (Allowing that maybe wireless might not work, or it may be slow due to no hardware 3D acceleration and just plain being really old.)
There is nothing that requires x86_64 to work. If you have a single core i686 without SSE2 and no hardware accelerated graphics (that is new enough to not be blacklisted) things will be slow. But crashes are *not* expected just because you are running i686 also wireless has nothing x86_64 specific either.
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Chris Murphy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/2014 04:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Chris Murphy
There's also https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=734808 which has to do with gnome-initial-setup being too large for a 1024x768 system.
It's also worth noting that a lot of the cheaper 11" and 13" laptops out there are using 1280x720 screens, so that's worth keeping in mind as well.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/2014 04:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Chris Murphy
There's also https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=734808 which has to do with gnome-initial-setup being too large for a 1024x768 system.
It's also worth noting that a lot of the cheaper 11" and 13" laptops out there are using 1280x720 screens, so that's worth keeping in mind as well.
Not only cheap laptops. You can find expensive ones with 2560x1440 which after factoring in hidpi scaling (2x) is effectively 1280x720 .. So if we want to recomend one it should be that and if apps do not work we need to fix them.
----- Original Message -----
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Minimum supported resolution is 800x600. In fact, we have some work we should do in gnome-settings-daemon, mutter or gnome-session about telling users that their screen is too small when it supports higher resolutions.
1024x768 is probably the lowest recommended resolution, and we should note that the "Large Text" Universal Access option is available for people with sight problems (eg. recommend the native resolution with large text instead of a lower resolution).
Cheers
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 08:17 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Minimum supported resolution is 800x600. In fact, we have some work we should do in gnome-settings-daemon, mutter or gnome-session about telling users that their screen is too small when it supports higher resolutions.
1024x768 is probably the lowest recommended resolution, and we should note that the "Large Text" Universal Access option is available for people with sight problems (eg. recommend the native resolution with large text instead of a lower resolution).
Is 1280x720 bigger or smaller than 1024x768? It's more pixels, but in UI terms, it's actually smaller since vertical screen size tends to be the limiting factor.
Even if we advertise 1024x768 as the minimum recommended for compactness, we need to be testing with 720-pixels vertically and fixing bugs as if that was our minimum standard for working well.
As a 2560x1440 user, I'd say that most things work fine, but there are a few problematical apps ... I recently had problems with Boxes.
- Owen
----- Original Message -----
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Btw. it's not only for Workstation product but for Server too - Anaconda also needs at least 1024x768, otherwise some labels may overflow the screen etc.
Jaroslav
Chris Murphy
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Btw. it's not only for Workstation product but for Server too - Anaconda also needs at least 1024x768, otherwise some labels may overflow the screen etc.
Fedora isn't installable on netbooks?
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Btw. it's not only for Workstation product but for Server too - Anaconda also needs at least 1024x768, otherwise some labels may overflow the screen etc.
Fedora isn't installable on netbooks?
It is but based on this thread, it can lead to issues in everything with GUI... From Anaconda to GNOME. And I'm not saying overflowing label saying "dora Workstat" is that big deal, just looking unprofessional. It does not happen for any Fedora products as far as I know but we hit with other RH product with very long name...
Jaroslav
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Mon 15 Sep 2014 11:37:08 AM EDT, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
Should there be a "recommended resolution" for Workstation?
I've got a 1024x768 VM and I've got all kinds of weirdness from gnome-software seemingly expecting a much bigger display. Maybe it's a bug so I filed one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141337
A resolution recommendation wouldn't suggest that you can't have less. But that if you have what's recommended, then you should have a good experience and not have to resize windows by default. They should just all fit in the recommended screen size. So I'm suggesting a burden on developers, rather than a limitation on users. Maybe 1280x1024?
Btw. it's not only for Workstation product but for Server too - Anaconda also needs at least 1024x768, otherwise some labels may overflow the screen etc.
Fedora isn't installable on netbooks?
It is but based on this thread, it can lead to issues in everything with GUI... From Anaconda to GNOME. And I'm not saying overflowing label saying "dora Workstat" is that big deal, just looking unprofessional. It does not happen for any Fedora products as far as I know but we hit with other RH product with very long name...
Jaroslav
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Would it be worth specifying both a minimum "widescreen" resolution and a minimum "regular" resolution?
Or would this just lead to more confusion?
just a thought, ryanlerch
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 11:46 -0400, Ryan Lerch wrote:
Would it be worth specifying both a minimum "widescreen" resolution and a minimum "regular" resolution?
Or would this just lead to more confusion?
It doesn't really help. As Owen said, the limiting factor really is the vertical resolution. Most of the time there's no way to trade more width for less height.
On 09/15/2014 12:41 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 11:46 -0400, Ryan Lerch wrote:
Would it be worth specifying both a minimum "widescreen" resolution and a minimum "regular" resolution?
Or would this just lead to more confusion?
It doesn't really help. As Owen said, the limiting factor really is the vertical resolution. Most of the time there's no way to trade more width for less height.
We could also work on fixing some of the vertical space issues, which would help lower-resolution users as well as higher resolution users (they would be able to see even more at one time):
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719881 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659647
(I'll just keep linking to my favorite bugs in relevant conversations until someone tells me that I'm getting annoying or I give up and switch back to XFCE. I apologize that I'm not skilled enough to figure out how to fix these things and post patches myself)
-Adam Batkin
Did you read this? http://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2014/08/27/gnome-design-saving-you-space-since-2...
----- Original Message -----
On 09/15/2014 12:41 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 11:46 -0400, Ryan Lerch wrote:
Would it be worth specifying both a minimum "widescreen" resolution and a minimum "regular" resolution?
Or would this just lead to more confusion?
It doesn't really help. As Owen said, the limiting factor really is the vertical resolution. Most of the time there's no way to trade more width for less height.
We could also work on fixing some of the vertical space issues, which would help lower-resolution users as well as higher resolution users (they would be able to see even more at one time):
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719881 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659647
(I'll just keep linking to my favorite bugs in relevant conversations until someone tells me that I'm getting annoying or I give up and switch back to XFCE. I apologize that I'm not skilled enough to figure out how to fix these things and post patches myself)
-Adam Batkin
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Sep 16, 2014 8:53 AM, "Bastien Nocera" bnocera@redhat.com wrote:
Did you read this?
http://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2014/08/27/gnome-design-saving-you-space-since-2...
Just because it is better than it was doesn't mean there isn't more extraneous space that could be trimmed.
On 09/16/2014 06:11 PM, Liam wrote:
On Sep 16, 2014 8:53 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <bnocera@redhat.com mailto:bnocera@redhat.com> wrote:
Did you read this?
http://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2014/08/27/gnome-design-saving-you-space-since-2...
Just because it is better than it was doesn't mean there isn't more extraneous space that could be trimmed.
Exactly.
Compare: http://i.imgur.com/xYR9GxV.png vs http://i.imgur.com/SOKXmI4.png
Many more items can be seen in the second picture. Not only that, but I find the latter layout to be more appealing without all that extra white space.
Information density is important. Stock Gnome kinda fails there. We are developers, not tourists ogling the beautiful sight that is Gnome's theme (that said, I think it could be just as visually appealing - if not more so - if the extra padding was cleaned up).
-Adam Batkin
On 17 September 2014 05:19, Adam Batkin adam@batkin.net wrote:
On 09/16/2014 06:11 PM, Liam wrote:
On Sep 16, 2014 8:53 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <bnocera@redhat.com mailto:bnocera@redhat.com> wrote:
Did you read this?
http://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2014/08/27/gnome-design- saving-you-space-since-2009-or-so/
Just because it is better than it was doesn't mean there isn't more extraneous space that could be trimmed.
Exactly.
Compare: http://i.imgur.com/xYR9GxV.png vs http://i.imgur.com/SOKXmI4.png
This is actually Eclipse making a mess of applying the Adwaita theme. Compare with gEdit's file browser: http://i.imgur.com/b52VXS2.png
IntelliJ's file browser is certainly more dense, but arguably less attractive, (note, I did drop GNOME's font size down to 9 for this screenie, because that's closer to the font size that IntelliJ uses, since it ignores GNOME's setting): http://i.imgur.com/VqqH7Gd.png
This all boils down to a matter of taste; no one theme will satisfy everybody, but that's why the toolkit can be themed. If Adwaita's use of white-space isn't to your liking you can always choose a different theme that suits your tastes better.
Cheers, R
On 09/17/2014 04:13 AM, Richard Turner wrote:
This is actually Eclipse making a mess of applying the Adwaita theme. Compare with gEdit's file browser: http://i.imgur.com/b52VXS2.png
Fair enough, my mistake. I only use 4 GUI applications on a daily basis (Thunderbird, Firefox, Konsole, Eclipse) so I hadn't really compared with anything.
I guess it's time to try to convince the SWT people that their GTK+ port may need some TLC.
-Adam Batkin
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org