I've added a section about hw requirements to the spec. It is a bit vague atm. Can we (and should we) make it more precise ?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
I've added a section about hw requirements to the spec. It is a bit vague atm. Can we (and should we) make it more precise ?
I actually like the wording there, even though it's vague. It's sufficient to describe the long term of the HW that's being targeted.
In the short-term, I think that precludes existing ARM boards as a target fairly clearly. That isn't to say that someone can't produce an ARM version of Workstation, but the graphics situation and boot methods that exist today aren't really suitable for it to be considered a blocker.
The more iffy part is i686 machines. I know some people still have 32-bit x86 machines they'd like to keep working, and RHEL 7 won't be an option for them either. CentOS 7 might be doing a 32-bit rebuild, but I honestly don't know if/when that would land. The question becomes how important to Workstation is this class of machine? I personally think that lands in the same status as ARM: possible for someone to create but not a blocker.
josh
Matthias Clasen (mclasen@redhat.com) said:
I've added a section about hw requirements to the spec. It is a bit vague atm. Can we (and should we) make it more precise ?
'suitable graphics and display resolutions'.
I would suggest at least: - a graphics adapter with a KMS-capable driver
Pros: matches what those working on gfx (in general) work on Cons: Do we support third-party drivers that don't do this? VESA? fbdev? Also, exposes implementation details that users shouldn't care about.
- a graphics adapter or adapter + CPU combo that supports <unspecified> level of 3D rendering performance
I believe this is a line we would draw in terms of what is supported/recommended, but I don't know how you would write this in a meaningful way that this could be applied.
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
- Input
Do we require at least one PS/2 or USB input device, or will we work with bluetooth-only or touchscreen-only devices?
Bill
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.comwrote:
Do we require at least one PS/2 or USB input device, or will we work with bluetooth-only or touchscreen-only devices?
For the initial release, advertising we support touch is probably a bad idea.
Touch support in gnome (and most apps) is still not good enough. In theory it is possible to work only with touchscreen, but right now it's just too frustrating.
I suggest we don't mention input methods in the tech spec at all.
For further reference, here is a list of bugs related to touch support in gnome: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=anywordssubstr...
In my opinion we can only advertise touch support as a feature once we have gestures in the shell, default web browser that supports touch, and few OSK improvements. There are upstream bugs (in Mozilla and gnome) for all of these.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:40:27PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthias Clasen (mclasen@redhat.com) said:
I've added a section about hw requirements to the spec. It is a bit vague atm. Can we (and should we) make it more precise ?
'suitable graphics and display resolutions'.
I would suggest at least:
- a graphics adapter with a KMS-capable driver
That rules out supporting systems using the binary nvidia or AMD driver, which is something I can certainly get behind but may not be what people are aiming for. For instance, new hardware might be supported by the nvidia driver but not by nouveau - in that case the system will boot with efifb (not KMS capable) and then the user might install the binary nvidia driver. Is that a supported hardware configuration?
- a graphics adapter or adapter + CPU combo that supports <unspecified> level of 3D rendering performance
I believe this is a line we would draw in terms of what is supported/recommended, but I don't know how you would write this in a meaningful way that this could be applied.
ajax almost certainly has opinions as to where the bar should be drawn here.
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
- Input
Do we require at least one PS/2 or USB input device, or will we work with bluetooth-only or touchscreen-only devices?
Where devices support the hid boot protocol over Bluetooth, and where we can deal with the handover between the firmware and a real driver, I think we should certainly aim to support that. We've talked about making efforts to support Apple hardware, and a lot of that tends to be bluetooth-only. Touchscreen-only sounds trickier.
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
Projectors are a secondary screen, usually, not a main screen.
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:10:53PM +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
Projectors are a secondary screen, usually, not a main screen.
Oh, absolutely. If the design takes that into account separately, that's just fine.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:10:53PM +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
Projectors are a secondary screen, usually, not a main screen.
Oh, absolutely. If the design takes that into account separately, that's just fine.
Its not like stuff will suddenly stop working if you have that resolution..
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM, drago01 wrote:
Its not like stuff will suddenly stop working if you have that resolution..
We can't be really sure that it will work well however if we don't actively test it for each release
We can. The worst that can happen is that some windows have a minimum size that does not fit on the screen. But that's it. Higher resolutions are the ones that may "not work" (lack of hidpi scaling, bigger then the GPUs texture size limit ...)
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:31:28AM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Its not like stuff will suddenly stop working if you have that resolution..
We can't be really sure that it will work well however if we don't actively test it for each release
We can. The worst that can happen is that some windows have a minimum size that does not fit on the screen.
Right, that's my only concern. I've used programs that made bad assumptions about the available real estate before, and it can be frustrating. I know how to use Super/Alt drag to move windows so I can get to missing bits, but that's kind of a pain. So if we're making a certain minimum assumption official, I think we should at least make sure 1024x768 on a secondary display (that is, a projector for a presentation) won't have gotchas. I wasn't meaning to make a bigger deal of it than that.
Sent from mYphone On Mar 2, 2014 4:31 AM, "drago01" drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM, drago01 wrote:
Its not like stuff will suddenly stop working if you have that resolution..
We can't be really sure that it will work well however if we don't
actively
test it for each release
We can. The worst that can happen is that some windows have a minimum size that does not fit on the screen. But that's it. Higher resolutions are the ones that may "not work" (lack of hidpi scaling, bigger then the GPUs texture size limit ...) -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Having a window that is not resizable (like gnome settings) AND overflows on 768 screens, I would call broken, at a min.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Liam liam.bulkley@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from mYphone
On Mar 2, 2014 4:31 AM, "drago01" drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM, drago01 wrote:
Its not like stuff will suddenly stop working if you have that resolution..
We can't be really sure that it will work well however if we don't actively test it for each release
We can. The worst that can happen is that some windows have a minimum size that does not fit on the screen. But that's it. Higher resolutions are the ones that may "not work" (lack of hidpi scaling, bigger then the GPUs texture size limit ...) -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Having a window that is not resizable (like gnome settings) AND overflows on 768 screens, I would call broken, at a min.
On a netbook with a 1024x600 display the Gnome Settings app just starts maximized. I haven't tested every single panel but it appears to work just fine.
-- Evandro
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/system-requirements
Looks like Windows 8 had a split 1024x768 and 1366x768 requirement. In Windows 8.1 they've backed off on 1366x768, there's only a 1024x768 requirement.
Chris Murphy
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 16:09 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
VMs are also quite commonly 1024x768. Indeed, someone pointed out to me recently - don't remember the context - that if you have a 1366x768 laptop, which is still a perfectly common configuration, the largest 'nested' display (i.e. VM) you can run without using fullscreen is 800x600, really.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 16:09 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
VMs are also quite commonly 1024x768. Indeed, someone pointed out to me recently - don't remember the context - that if you have a 1366x768 laptop, which is still a perfectly common configuration, the largest 'nested' display (i.e. VM) you can run without using fullscreen is 800x600, really.
There's still a lot of netbooks and those sort of low end devices with 1024x600 screens too
Peter
----- Original Message -----
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
- 1024x768 resolution (or 1024x600?)
Too conservative?
Is anyone shipping anything below 1366x768 now? Probably worth checking what the requirements for the Windows hardware certification are.
It might be nice to keep 1024x768 projectors in mind.
There's a lot of 800x600 projectors too - especially that handy small projectors. But recommended resolution should be at least 1024x768 (or similar) these days. Just lets make sure these are still useful at least as a second output for projectors (and thus presentations).
Jaroslav
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
----- Original Message -----
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:40:27PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Input
Do we require at least one PS/2 or USB input device, or will we work with bluetooth-only or touchscreen-only devices?
Where devices support the hid boot protocol over Bluetooth, and where we can deal with the handover between the firmware and a real driver,
We don't. But we don't enable the hid to hci script by default, so they should keep working in boot mode.
We lack tech specs for the various chips that implement this sort of saving of linkkeys into the adapter itself, so we cannot provide adequate support for them.
I think we should certainly aim to support that. We've talked about making efforts to support Apple hardware, and a lot of that tends to be bluetooth-only. Touchscreen-only sounds trickier.
Touchscreen will be difficult to use, but should not be impossible. Right now it would require opening the status menu, selecting settings, going to Universal Access and enabling the OSK.
The (much maligned) cursor plugin in gnome-settings-daemon exports a property to request the OSK to be shown in gnome-shell: gdbus introspect --session --dest org.gnome.SettingsDaemon.Cursor --object-path /org/gnome/SettingsDaemon/Cursor
I don't think it's hooked up yet, and I cannot find the bugs related to that. David Kind would know.
Cheers
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Bastien Nocera -
Bill Nottingham -
Chris Murphy -
drago01 -
Elad Alfassa -
Evandro Giovanini -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Josh Boyer -
Liam -
Matthew Garrett -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Clasen -
Peter Robinson -
Rahul Sundaram