[opensuse-factory] Udisks2
There is a very much negative review of udisks2 http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/ which claims that udisks2 is a Gnome-specific tool and will render many applications incompatible until rewritten. If this is true I would very much oppose including udisks2 in openSUSE without a thorough preparation. What do you think about this? Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite. What is with other desktop environments? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 Mar 2012 07:02:50 Ilya Chernykh wrote:
What do you think about this?
I think it's not a problem for software that uses dbus. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 00:02, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
There is a very much negative review of udisks2 http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/ which claims that udisks2 is a Gnome-specific tool and will render many applications incompatible until rewritten.
If this is true I would very much oppose including udisks2 in openSUSE without a thorough preparation.
that article is bullshit, it provides no technical rationale on why it is wrong and what can be done about it. "This has become a trend in Linux – increasing use of convoluted and buggy library APIs and mostly-broken security mechanisms, the abandonment of simple command line interfaces, and continuous breakage due to usage and API changes. This effectively turns Linux into Windows, " arghh.. deal with it.. I have hear that many times, that is an old dogma that wont help us move any further.
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite.
No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3. We have warned you many times about how futile is to beat-a-dead-horse , but apparently fell in deaf ears. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 08:35:47 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite.
No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3.
We have warned you many times about how futile is to beat-a-dead-horse , but apparently fell in deaf ears.
Well, I then there will be no desktop suitable for me. I would be unable to work on my computer. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On vrijdag 30 maart 2012 07:24:03 Ilya Chernykh wrote:
Well, I then there will be no desktop suitable for me. I would be unable to work on my computer.
Please be productive and explain what you can do with KDE3 that you can't do with KDE4. -- fr.gr. Freek de Kruijf -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 12:00:34 Freek de Kruijf wrote:
Well, I then there will be no desktop suitable for me. I would be unable to work on my computer.
Please be productive and explain what you can do with KDE3 that you can't do with KDE4.
Well as I can open a hex editor in KDE4 and write down all of KDE3, I can do with it anything KDE3 can, moreover, anything a Turing machine can do. The question is whether it would be comfortable and productive. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 08:35:47 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
"This has become a trend in Linux – increasing use of convoluted and buggy library APIs and mostly-broken security mechanisms, the abandonment of simple command line interfaces, and continuous breakage due to usage and API changes. This effectively turns Linux into Windows, "
arghh.. deal with it.. I have hear that many times, that is an old dogma that wont help us move any further.
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite.
No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3.
I think maintaining and developing KDE4 is a much greater waste of resources. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 16:37, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 08:35:47 Cristian Rodr�guez wrote:
"This has become a trend in Linux � increasing use of convoluted and buggy library APIs and mostly-broken security mechanisms, the abandonment of simple command line interfaces, and continuous breakage due to usage and API changes. This effectively turns Linux into Windows, "
arghh.. deal with it.. I have hear that many times, that is an old dogma that wont help us move any further.
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite. No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3. I think maintaining and developing KDE4 is a much greater waste of resources.
Oh, Ilya, now you are being silly - and simply peeing against a gale :-( . BC -- Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 09:48:52 Basil Chupin wrote:
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite. No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3. I think maintaining and developing KDE4 is a much greater waste of resources.
Oh, Ilya, now you are being silly - and simply peeing against a gale :-( .
Is not that true that KDE4 consumes more resources? By the way, I am fed up with those attacks on KDE3. Let's discuss udisks2 and how we are ready for it, this is what I intended. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 16:52, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 09:48:52 Basil Chupin wrote:
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite. No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3. I think maintaining and developing KDE4 is a much greater waste of resources. Oh, Ilya, now you are being silly - and simply peeing against a gale :-( . Is not that true that KDE4 consumes more resources?
By the way, I am fed up with those attacks on KDE3.
I am not attacking KDE 3. I am simply stating that your continuous insistence concerning KDE 3 versus KDE 4 has now reached the crescendo as expressed by yourself above and that you are peeing against a gale. I am a KDE-man - I think that KDE is the way to go. I have used Gnome (in it's old and most recent incarnations) and Unity but found that the only intelligent and practical way to get work done is to use KDE. Obviously, I have used KDE 3 but personally I found that KDE 4 is better. But that is me. I had to adjust in some ways but there was nothing which caused me to go and seek help from a psychiatrist (nor a psychologist). Some of the discussion and comments about KDE 3 vs KDE 4 is akin to religious zealotry or even be very closely aligned to bigotry. Just out of personal curiosity on my part, what is there about KDE 3 for you which could not be provided by, say, XFCE? Or even, say, another distro which has Gnome 3 as its default DE?
Let's discuss udisks2 and how we are ready for it, this is what I intended.
If you wish, but then stop bringing up your unhealthy obsession with KDE 3 :-) . BC -- Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 10:22:35 Basil Chupin wrote:
Just out of personal curiosity on my part, what is there about KDE 3 for you which could not be provided by, say, XFCE? Or even, say, another distro which has Gnome 3 as its default DE?
I use a spatial mode of file manager that is not in Xfce and has been removed from KDE4. Thus the only desktops suitable for me are Gnome2, KDE3 and, possible in the future, Enlightenment. Since Gnome2 is not available at the moment, the only option remaining is KDE3, which is very good compared to any other possible variants. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 17:48, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 10:22:35 Basil Chupin wrote:
Just out of personal curiosity on my part, what is there about KDE 3 for you which could not be provided by, say, XFCE? Or even, say, another distro which has Gnome 3 as its default DE? I use a spatial mode of file manager that is not in Xfce and has been removed from KDE4. Thus the only desktops suitable for me are Gnome2, KDE3 and, possible in the future, Enlightenment. Since Gnome2 is not available at the moment, the only option remaining is KDE3, which is very good compared to any other possible variants.
Thank you for the above. It would help me muchly if I were to understand what you meant by "spatial mode of file manager" (which "file manager"?). BC -- Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:00:57 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 30/03/12 17:48, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 10:22:35 Basil Chupin wrote:
Just out of personal curiosity on my part, what is there about KDE 3 for you which could not be provided by, say, XFCE? Or even, say, another distro which has Gnome 3 as its default DE? I use a spatial mode of file manager that is not in Xfce and has been removed from KDE4. Thus the only desktops suitable for me are Gnome2, KDE3 and, possible in the future, Enlightenment. Since Gnome2 is not available at the moment, the only option remaining is KDE3, which is very good compared to any other possible variants.
Thank you for the above.
It would help me muchly if I were to understand what you meant by "spatial mode of file manager" (which "file manager"?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_file_manager https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=245874 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 09:52:09 Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 09:48:52 Basil Chupin wrote:
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite.> >> No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3.
I think maintaining and developing KDE4 is a much greater waste of resources.> Oh, Ilya, now you are being silly - and simply peeing against a gale :-( . Is not that true that KDE4 consumes more resources?
By the way, I am fed up with those attacks on KDE3. Let's discuss udisks2 and how we are ready for it, this is what I intended.
+10000 the KDE 3 vs 4 discussion is a huge waste of time. About as usuless as the GNOME vs KDE debate. IF we'd succeed in pestering Ilya away from maintaining KDE 3, he surely won't be helping on KDE 4 - we'd just loose a piece of software which is still used by quite a number of users*. Nobody wins. So can we stop the loose-loose game here? * see http://www.suse.de/~coolo/repo.list and note that the KDE 3 repo's get over 12 million downloads per 3 weeks.
Am Samstag, 31. März 2012, 15:11:10 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:
* see http://www.suse.de/~coolo/repo.list and note that the KDE 3 repo's get over 12 million downloads per 3 weeks.
Since those numbers are always quoted, does anyone actually know how they come about? What does downloads mean? If a repo has many packages and many package changes the download number might be high although the user number is lower compared to another repo with less packages, less updates and more users. So are those unique IPs or just package downloads which nobody knows how many users they represent? Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 00:44:41 schrieb Sven Burmeister:
So are those unique IPs or just package downloads which nobody knows how many users they represent?
BTW roughly how many users does openSUSE have? http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Statistics shows some numbers but since it does not subtract "replaced" cookies, it's not really that helpful. I read a number of 1.2 Mio somewhere some years ago, is that correct? KDE:UpdatedApps:12.1 (KUA) has 28 Mio downloads in three weeks (according to Jos) and 46 packages are available in that repo. So each package was downloaded 600,000 times in three weeks assuming that all KUA users update every package from that repo. I'd guess the latter is wrong and hence the download numbers/users for some packages are higher. But anyway, assuming that the packages in KUA did all change at least twice within three weeks, which does not happen in KUA, but anyway. There would be 300,000 users which have installed all packages from KUA and update all of them. So 25% of openSUSE users use a non-official (compared to oss) KDE4 repo, which seems a lot, i.e. too many, to me. Assuming oS has 2 Mio users it would still be 15%. I always assumed users would be a lot more conservative regarding un- official repos, expecting something like 15% of the KDE4 oS users and not 15% of all oS users. Especially because all those using KDE:Release:xy repos are not using KUA, as they do not mix. KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package. Assuming the same amount of changes, results in 1% of openSUSE users using that repo (assuming 1.2 Mio) and 0,7% assuming 2 Mio oS users. Java 100,000,000 downloads, 200 packages, 500,000 downloads per package in three weeks. And thus with the same numbers as above 20% of the oS users, 12,5% respectively. I'm not sure these download numbers can be used to prove anything without a lot more data as to where they come from and what they represent, how they depend on the number of packages in a repo, how often those packages get a new build number and thus increase the download number etc. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 04:18:34 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package.
This is incorrect. I think the most packages are not used at all (like kde3-kmameleon) while the packages like kdebase3 are the most popular. No user needs all KDE:KDE3 packages.
Assuming the same amount of changes, results in 1% of openSUSE users using that repo (assuming 1.2 Mio) and 0,7% assuming 2 Mio oS users.
Java 100,000,000 downloads, 200 packages, 500,000 downloads per package in three weeks. And thus with the same numbers as above 20% of the oS users, 12,5% respectively.
It is incorrect to devide by the number of packages.
I'm not sure these download numbers can be used to prove anything without a lot more data as to where they come from and what they represent, how they depend on the number of packages in a repo, how often those packages get a new build number and thus increase the download number etc.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 06:05:35 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 04:18:34 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package.
This is incorrect. I think the most packages are not used at all (like kde3-kmameleon) while the packages like kdebase3 are the most popular. No user needs all KDE:KDE3 packages.
As mentioned already this would apply to all other repos as well. See below and my other replies.
It is incorrect to devide by the number of packages.
Because it does not fit your needs? Any evidence that disregarding the number of packages is more valid? Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:47:47 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package.
This is incorrect. I think the most packages are not used at all (like kde3-kmameleon) while the packages like kdebase3 are the most popular. No user needs all KDE:KDE3 packages.
As mentioned already this would apply to all other repos as well. See below and my other replies.
No. MOST packages in KDE:KDE3 are not used by the majority of KDE3 repository users.
It is incorrect to devide by the number of packages.
Because it does not fit your needs? Any evidence that disregarding the number of packages is more valid?
Why do you assume that any user downloaded each of 480 packages in those three weeks? This is nonsence! - because only a minority of packages were updated in three weeks so that even if somebody has installed all 480 packages they would not update all - because there are many packages that contain only one window decorartion style and there is no reason in installing all window decorations for anybody - because there are many users who use another desktop and only use one KDE3 application such as amarok or kmail. - because the KDE3 applications go in boundles like kdenetwork and kdepim and each bundle contains most of what an average user would need. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 14:08:24 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
Why do you assume that any user downloaded each of 480 packages in those three weeks? This is nonsence!
- because only a minority of packages were updated in three weeks so that even if somebody has installed all 480 packages they would not update all
- because there are many packages that contain only one window decorartion style and there is no reason in installing all window decorations for anybody
- because there are many users who use another desktop and only use one KDE3 application such as amarok or kmail.
- because the KDE3 applications go in boundles like kdenetwork and kdepim and each bundle contains most of what an average user would need.
Ilya, you missed the point – completely. Once again. And I won't explain it another time after this email since you ignore the simplest facts and email passages to your liking. You do not have any clue how the download numbers come about, i.e. how many users the represent. I do not either. People could bias them with download scripts, there is no info whether they ignore downloads from the same IP etc. You claim that disregarding the number of packages in a repo is more valid than taking them into account when it comes to assessing and comparing repos' downloads. I claim that you are wrong in that regard. BTW: you also ignored the last paragraph of my email, but anyway. You claimed that people only use 3-4 packages from the KDE3 repo, I claimed that this is unlikely since the KDE3 core packages + Qt are already far more than 3-4. And either you are wrong claiming that you maintain those packages, i.e. add patches, or you are wrong claiming that none of the KDE3 users that use the repo want the patched packages. The latter is my bold claim, i.e. people who use a repo want updated packages. :) You forget that whatever you claim for the KDE3 repo is valid for other repos as well. People do not install all packages from KUA, KDE4 or whatever repo either, so user numbers for those increase as well. I never claimed that my figures are quantitatively correct. In fact I came to the conclusion that one cannot show anything with those numbers – which you try to do nevertheless in order to prove how popular KDE3 is. All I claim is that my approach, i.e. taking the number of packages available within a repo into account when assessing the download numbers of a repo makes more sense than your approach of comparing just the numbers without any regard to the repos' properties. As a side note: you make the mistake of comparing one KDE4 (KR48 it was) repo with the KDE3 repo. You would have to sum-up the different flavours of KDE4 + KUA and Extra. While KDE3 has only one repo for all packages, the packages and hence downloads of KDE4 repos are spread across several repos. So please stop using those download numbers as you have no clue what they actually mean, nobody has. I'm not sure why Jos brought them up, he should know better and since you are a smart guy, you as well. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 15:01:01 Sven Burmeister wrote:
You claim that disregarding the number of packages in a repo is more valid than taking them into account when it comes to assessing and comparing repos' downloads. I claim that you are wrong in that regard. BTW: you also ignored the last paragraph of my email, but anyway.
You claimed that people only use 3-4 packages from the KDE3 repo, I claimed that this is unlikely since the KDE3 core packages + Qt are already far more than 3-4. And either you are wrong claiming that you maintain those packages, i.e. add patches, or you are wrong claiming that none of the KDE3 users that use the repo want the patched packages. The latter is my bold claim, i.e. people who use a repo want updated packages. :)
Again, I do not update 480 packages in a month. Even if all the users used all the 480 packages.
You forget that whatever you claim for the KDE3 repo is valid for other repos as well. People do not install all packages from KUA, KDE4 or whatever repo either, so user numbers for those increase as well.
KDE4 includes the most necessary packages, part of the KDE distribution, so a person who wants KDE 4.8 installs a significant part of that repository. Also KDE 4.8 is not included in the main repo.
I never claimed that my figures are quantitatively correct. In fact I came to the conclusion that one cannot show anything with those numbers – which you try to do nevertheless in order to prove how popular KDE3 is. All I claim is that my approach, i.e. taking the number of packages available within a repo into account when assessing the download numbers of a repo makes more sense than your approach of comparing just the numbers without any regard to the repos' properties.
Then take into account other things as well: the number of packages in a typical KDE3 installation, the number of similar packages in the official repo, the number of packages that exclude the use of each other (styles, window decorations), the number of users who use only single KDE3 applications etc. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ilya Chernykh
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:47:47 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package.
This is incorrect. I think the most packages are not used at all (like kde3-kmameleon) while the packages like kdebase3 are the most popular. No user needs all KDE:KDE3 packages.
As mentioned already this would apply to all other repos as well. See below and my other replies.
No. MOST packages in KDE:KDE3 are not used by the majority of KDE3 repository users.
It is incorrect to devide by the number of packages.
Because it does not fit your needs? Any evidence that disregarding the number of packages is more valid?
Why do you assume that any user downloaded each of 480 packages in those three weeks? This is nonsence!
- because only a minority of packages were updated in three weeks so that even if somebody has installed all 480 packages they would not update all
Excluding devel and debug packages there are 1619 rpm packages in KDE:KDE3 for x86_64, i386, and noarch (each would count as a separate download). Of those, 742 were updated in March, or about 46%. And that is assuming no one installs any devel or debug packages. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:47:37 todd rme wrote:
- because only a minority of packages were updated in three weeks so that even if somebody has installed all 480 packages they would not update all
Excluding devel and debug packages there are 1619 rpm packages in KDE:KDE3 for x86_64, i386, and noarch (each would count as a separate download). Of those, 742 were updated in March, or about 46%. And that is assuming no one installs any devel or debug packages.
Okay. 46%. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:47:47 Sven Burmeister wrote:
Because it does not fit your needs? Any evidence that disregarding the number of packages is more valid?
By assuming that every KDE:KDE3 user installed all 480 packages in just 3 weeks you got 2% of users to use KDE3 repository. By assuming a more realistic (but still too high) number that an average KDE:KDE3 user installed or updated 24 to 48 packages from KDE:KDE3 you came to a ten or twenty-time greater number of 20 to 40% of openSUSE users who used that repository. Just for example, a KDE3 LiveCD by Marcus Moeller http://lizards.opensuse.org/2011/12/02/opensuse-12-1-kde3-livecd/ includes 35 KDE3 packages. KDE3 1-click install pattern includes 56 packages These are typical configurations that are needed for an average desktop usage. Needless to say that all of them included in the main repo so there is no need to install them from KDE:KDE3. A KDE3 user only have to install from KDE:KDE3 those packages that are not in the main repo. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 04:18:34 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package. Assuming the same amount of changes, results in 1% of openSUSE users using that repo (assuming 1.2 Mio) and 0,7% assuming 2 Mio oS users.
How you came to an idea that any KDE3 user downloads all 450 packages? I think each KDE3 user installs at best 3 or 4 packages from that repository. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 06:12:07 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 04:18:34 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages and hence 27,000 downloads per package. Assuming the same amount of changes, results in 1% of openSUSE users using that repo (assuming 1.2 Mio) and 0,7% assuming 2 Mio oS users. How you came to an idea that any KDE3 user downloads all 450 packages? I think each KDE3 user installs at best 3 or 4 packages from that repository.
3-4? Would you mind calculating how many users that would be and how many users openSUSE would have as a consequence in total? I think that it will show you quite clearly that your claim does not make sense. Especially since the core packages of kde3 are already more than 3-4. All I did was to assume that there is a relation between the number of packages available and the number of downloads which should be pretty obvious to you. Since you have at most as little idea of how they relate as I do, either do not use them to prove how popular a project is or do at least provide some approach on how they can be put into sensible numbers. Disregarding the number of packages in a repo is untrustworthy for sure. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:44:02 Sven Burmeister wrote:
How you came to an idea that any KDE3 user downloads all 450 packages? I think each KDE3 user installs at best 3 or 4 packages from that repository.
3-4? Would you mind calculating how many users that would be and how many users openSUSE would have as a consequence in total? I think that it will show you quite clearly that your claim does not make sense. Especially since the core packages of kde3 are already more than 3-4.
Core packages of KDE3 are already in the main repo. There is no need to install them from KDE:KDE3. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 14:36:16 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:44:02 Sven Burmeister wrote:
How you came to an idea that any KDE3 user downloads all 450 packages? I think each KDE3 user installs at best 3 or 4 packages from that repository.
3-4? Would you mind calculating how many users that would be and how many users openSUSE would have as a consequence in total? I think that it will show you quite clearly that your claim does not make sense. Especially since the core packages of kde3 are already more than 3-4.
Core packages of KDE3 are already in the main repo. There is no need to install them from KDE:KDE3.
Where is the calculation to relate the download numbers to the total openSUSE users if every KDE3 user only uses 3-4 packages from that repo and they hardly get updated? Let me help you with that. 12,000,000 downloads for the 12.1 KDE3 repo, each user only gets 4 packages from that repo, the packages are hardly updated ("only a minority of packages were updated in three weeks") which gets us a bit towards the 3 packages per user. Anyway, 12,000,000 downloads divided by 4 equals 3 Mio 12.1 KDE3 users. Even not taking into account those KDE3 users which do not use that repo, that's more than openSUSE had in total at the times of 11.3, 11.2, 11.1 even disregarding that the method used to count those numbers (11.x users) disregards if a counted distro version is replaced by a new version, i.e. does not subtract users who update their openSUSE version. http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Statistics So I guess openSUSE is pretty much dominated by KDE3 users (>100%) or grew excessively since 11.3. :) Or to take another approach: if 50% of the oS users use KDE3 it has 6 Mio users, if 25% use KDE3, it has 12 Mio users, 10% (approaching but still far off my estimate of KDE3 oS users) openSUSE would have 30 Mio users and hence far more than Ubuntu. I know that not even this simple and rough calculation will make you step away from your ideology but hopefully it makes you a bit more reasonable when spreading your KDE3 popularity believes. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 15:25:46 Sven Burmeister wrote:
Or to take another approach: if 50% of the oS users use KDE3 it has 6 Mio users, if 25% use KDE3, it has 12 Mio users, 10% (approaching but still far off my estimate of KDE3 oS users) openSUSE would have 30 Mio users and hence far more than Ubuntu.
I know that not even this simple and rough calculation will make you step away from your ideology but hopefully it makes you a bit more reasonable when spreading your KDE3 popularity believes.
So the actual number is somewhere between 1% and "more than 100%". I just showed you that your calculation of "1%" is totally wrong. I think that it is not controversial if I say that thousands of openSUSE users use KDE3 and that KDE:KDE3 repository is the largest in the build service. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 15:31:50 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
I just showed you that your calculation of "1%" is totally wrong.
Hm, actually not. You just ignored the passages of my emails you did not like. And…see below, keeping in mind that you claim 1% to be totally wrong. (Which btw I never claimed to be correct, just closer to reality than your estimates of 3 Mio KDE3 12.1 openSUSE users)
I think that it is not controversial if I say that thousands of openSUSE users use KDE3 and that KDE:KDE3 repository is the largest in the build service.
You should increase your propaganda to tens of thousands at least, otherwise you only end-up with ~2% or less, which does not quite fit your believes. Or better, don't claim anything and do not assign any meaning to the number of packages or space they occupy on a server but that the packager did a lot of packaging. Anybody can beat you on that. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 04/01/12 07:25, Sven Burmeister pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 14:36:16 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:44:02 Sven Burmeister wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE TAKE THIS PISSING MATCH ELSEWHERE -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 4/1/2012 7:37 AM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote:
On 04/01/12 07:25, Sven Burmeister pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 14:36:16 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:44:02 Sven Burmeister wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE TAKE THIS PISSING MATCH ELSEWHERE
CAN WE PLEASE DISALLOW SHOUTING TO OTHER PEOPLE TO SHUT UP Such a useful contribution to a discussion. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 04/02/12 18:14, Brian K. White pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
On 4/1/2012 7:37 AM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote:
On 04/01/12 07:25, Sven Burmeister pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 14:36:16 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 12:44:02 Sven Burmeister wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE TAKE THIS PISSING MATCH ELSEWHERE
CAN WE PLEASE DISALLOW SHOUTING TO OTHER PEOPLE TO SHUT UP Such a useful contribution to a discussion.
No. They had been asked politely several times to take their OT discussion elsewhere and didn't get the message. -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 07:25:53 Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE DISALLOW SHOUTING TO OTHER PEOPLE TO SHUT UP Such a useful contribution to a discussion.
No. They had been asked politely several times to take their OT discussion elsewhere and didn't get the message.
It was not my discussion, I was not an initiator nor continuator. I several times asked to stop this off-topic. Why should I shut up? Should I allow all the mud without an answer? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
As a bystander in this thread, I feel that I have nothing to lose by stating: STOP. Original topic: udisks2 Current topic: who know what it bloody is but it better be going somewhere on-topic. Also, I don't know about you guys, but in grade school I learned about being polite. Can we at least show some decency here? Thanks. Period. -- later daze. :: Robert Xu :: protocol.by/rxu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/04/12 15:35, Robert Xu wrote:
As a bystander in this thread, I feel that I have nothing to lose by stating: STOP.
Original topic: udisks2 Current topic: who know what it bloody is but it better be going somewhere on-topic.
Also, I don't know about you guys, but in grade school I learned about being polite. Can we at least show some decency here? Thanks.
Period.
Need a sanitary napkin? BC -- Why do people order double cheeseburgers, large French fries, and Diet Coke? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 03 Apr 2012 15:42:48 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 03/04/12 15:35, Robert Xu wrote:
Period.
Need a sanitary napkin?
Ugh. Loser. I'm this close to asking admins to moderate threads and posters. This list is for getting work done, not for flaming or being puerile. If one materially contributes to Factory, the list will tolerate a bit of humour and BS from you on the side. Conversely if you have nothing better to do than comment uselessly on everything it will squelch you. Will -- Will Stephenson, openSUSE Board, Booster, KDE Developer SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/04/12 15:53, Will Stephenson wrote:
On Tuesday 03 Apr 2012 15:42:48 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 03/04/12 15:35, Robert Xu wrote:
Period. Need a sanitary napkin? Ugh. Loser.
I'm this close to asking admins to moderate threads and posters. This list is for getting work done, not for flaming or being puerile.
If one materially contributes to Factory, the list will tolerate a bit of humour and BS from you on the side. Conversely if you have nothing better to do than comment uselessly on everything it will squelch you.
Will
You're right. Sorry about that. BC -- Why do people order double cheeseburgers, large French fries, and Diet Coke? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 02:14:52 Brian K. White wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE TAKE THIS PISSING MATCH ELSEWHERE
CAN WE PLEASE DISALLOW SHOUTING TO OTHER PEOPLE TO SHUT UP Such a useful contribution to a discussion.
...Especially from an openSUSE ambassador... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 04:18:34 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages
...and, by the way, it has not 450 but more than 480 packages. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Sonntag, 1. April 2012, 08:21:41 schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 04:18:34 Sven Burmeister wrote:
KDE3 has 12 million downloads with 450 packages
...and, by the way, it has not 450 but more than 480 packages.
This makes it even have less users, simply because there is a relation between number of packages and number of downloads, even if it's not linear. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012/03/30 16:48 (GMT+1100) Basil Chupin composed:
Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?
How do you know there isn't? :-D -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 17:04, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012/03/30 16:48 (GMT+1100) Basil Chupin composed:
Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?
How do you know there isn't? :-D
You ever shopped for your cat? :-) BC -- Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012/03/30 17:28 (GMT+1100) Basil Chupin composed:
On 30/03/12 17:04, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012/03/30 16:48 (GMT+1100) Basil Chupin composed:
Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?
How do you know there isn't? :-D
You ever shopped for your cat? :-)
I don't have a cat, but I'll bet you haven't shopped every source that sells cat food. :-p -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 Mar 2012 09:51:52 Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012/03/30 17:28 (GMT+1100) Basil Chupin composed:
On 30/03/12 17:04, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012/03/30 16:48 (GMT+1100) Basil Chupin composed:
Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?
How do you know there isn't? :-D
You ever shopped for your cat? :-)
I don't have a cat, but I'll bet you haven't shopped every source that sells cat food. :-p
List police here. Please pull your mail browser over and drive in the direction of the offtopic list. Will -- Will Stephenson, openSUSE Team SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 15:35, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 30/03/12 00:02, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
There is a very much negative review of udisks2 http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/
which claims that udisks2 is a Gnome-specific tool and will render many applications incompatible until rewritten.
If this is true I would very much oppose including udisks2 in openSUSE without a thorough preparation.
that article is bullshit, it provides no technical rationale on why it is wrong and what can be done about it.
"This has become a trend in Linux � increasing use of convoluted and buggy library APIs and mostly-broken security mechanisms, the abandonment of simple command line interfaces, and continuous breakage due to usage and API changes. This effectively turns Linux into Windows, "
arghh.. deal with it.. I have hear that many times, that is an old dogma that wont help us move any further.
Note: it costed a much effort to adapt KDE3 to udisks instead of hal but for now it heavily depends on udisks1 functionality. I suspect porting to udisks2 will again need a rewrite.
No, it will make you realize what a huge waste of time and resources it is to maintain a dead rotting desktop envirnonment as KDE3.
We have warned you many times about how futile is to beat-a-dead-horse , but apparently fell in deaf ears.
May I please ask what your position is within the openSUSE organisation - that is, where are you positioned in the hierarchy of decision makers in the openSUSE organisation? Or perhaps you could point me to a source which provides such a list of decision-makers in openSUSE (which would be even better). Thank you. BC -- Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 09:44:01 Basil Chupin wrote:
May I please ask what your position is within the openSUSE organisation - that is, where are you positioned in the hierarchy of decision makers in the openSUSE organisation?
Or perhaps you could point me to a source which provides such a list of decision-makers in openSUSE (which would be even better).
He is a community member as I am. Anyway nobody can order me to stop my work, even a UN Secretary-General. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/03/12 16:58, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 09:44:01 Basil Chupin wrote:
May I please ask what your position is within the openSUSE organisation - that is, where are you positioned in the hierarchy of decision makers in the openSUSE organisation?
Or perhaps you could point me to a source which provides such a list of decision-makers in openSUSE (which would be even better).
He is a community member as I am.
I was expecting Cristian to answer but I thank you for advising me.
Anyway nobody can order me to stop my work, even a UN Secretary-General.
And who is trying to stop you, may I ask? Is there something going on in the background which we ought to know about? BC -- Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
El 30/03/12 02:44, Basil Chupin escribió:
May I please ask what your position is within the openSUSE organisation - that is, where are you positioned in the hierarchy of decision makers in the openSUSE organisation?
Or perhaps you could point me to a source which provides such a list of decision-makers in openSUSE (which would be even better).
What has this to do with me ? I am a contributor like anyone else, I only take decisions in my area of expertise and express my opinion based on the experience of beating dead horses with an steel bat over and over again. (aka. mistakes) :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012, à 07:02 +0400, Ilya Chernykh a écrit :
There is a very much negative review of udisks2 http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/ which claims that udisks2 is a Gnome-specific tool and will render many applications incompatible until rewritten.
If this is true I would very much oppose including udisks2 in openSUSE without a thorough preparation.
What do you think about this?
I didn't even bother to read the blog post because: - your summary of the post makes me feel it's just a rant, and I'm not interested in rants - we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2 - udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:07:00 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict. It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently? I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 . -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012, à 11:14 +0400, Ilya Chernykh a écrit :
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:07:00 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict.
It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently?
I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 .
The command-line tools provided by udisks/udisks2 are just details: the main point of udisks/udisks2 is the dbus interfaces. The reason they don't conflict (apart from being parallel-installable) is that both udisks and udisks2 are reactive to what happens on the system. So if udisks does something, then udisks2 will see that too and adapt to the change. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:23:42 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict.
It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently?
I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 .
The command-line tools provided by udisks/udisks2 are just details: the main point of udisks/udisks2 is the dbus interfaces.
Still it is impossible to call dbus from an udev rules file. That is the problem.
The reason they don't conflict (apart from being parallel-installable) is that both udisks and udisks2 are reactive to what happens on the system. So if udisks does something, then udisks2 will see that too and adapt to the change. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012, à 11:25 +0400, Ilya Chernykh a écrit :
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:23:42 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict.
It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently?
I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 .
The command-line tools provided by udisks/udisks2 are just details: the main point of udisks/udisks2 is the dbus interfaces.
Still it is impossible to call dbus from an udev rules file. That is the problem.
man gdbus man dbus-send Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:32:53 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict.
It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently?
I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 .
The command-line tools provided by udisks/udisks2 are just details: the main point of udisks/udisks2 is the dbus interfaces.
Still it is impossible to call dbus from an udev rules file. That is the problem.
man gdbus man dbus-send
Is it recommended to include such calls to /etc/udev/rules.d ? I also unfamiliar with dbus calls... udisks --mount /dev/sdb1 is so simple... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012, à 11:37 +0400, Ilya Chernykh a écrit :
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:32:53 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict.
It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently?
I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 .
The command-line tools provided by udisks/udisks2 are just details: the main point of udisks/udisks2 is the dbus interfaces.
Still it is impossible to call dbus from an udev rules file. That is the problem.
man gdbus man dbus-send
Is it recommended to include such calls to /etc/udev/rules.d ?
No idea, I'm just telling it's possibe to directly use a command-line to interact with a dbus service.
I also unfamiliar with dbus calls...
udisks --mount /dev/sdb1
is so simple...
So just keep using it. Or write a wrapper that uses udisksctl if it's there, or falls back to udisks in the other case. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:44:25 Vincent Untz wrote:
I also unfamiliar with dbus calls...
udisks --mount /dev/sdb1
is so simple...
So just keep using it.
This will make the udev rules file dependent on udiisks-1, which is not an universal solution. I just want to restore the automount functionality in openSUSE after udevmountd became non-functional.
Or write a wrapper that uses udisksctl if it's there, or falls back to udisks in the other case.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:52:49AM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:44:25 Vincent Untz wrote:
I also unfamiliar with dbus calls...
udisks --mount /dev/sdb1
is so simple...
So just keep using it.
This will make the udev rules file dependent on udiisks-1, which is not an universal solution. I just want to restore the automount functionality in openSUSE after udevmountd became non-functional.
e.g. the udisks-glue package does automounting. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:37:23AM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 11:32:53 Vincent Untz wrote:
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Thanks. This is interesting. I wonder how they do not conflict.
It follows that they do not use the same command-line tools or they are named differently?
I was thinking about implementing automounting through the udev rules but this needs a stable command-line interface (instead of broken udevmountd command) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712485 .
The command-line tools provided by udisks/udisks2 are just details: the main point of udisks/udisks2 is the dbus interfaces.
Still it is impossible to call dbus from an udev rules file. That is the problem.
man gdbus man dbus-send
Is it recommended to include such calls to /etc/udev/rules.d ? I also unfamiliar with dbus calls...
udisks --mount /dev/sdb1
Never do that in a udev rule, it is wrong. I refer you to the thread recently on the linux-hotplug list for why. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 17:45:33 Greg KH wrote:
udisks --mount /dev/sdb1
Never do that in a udev rule, it is wrong.
I refer you to the thread recently on the linux-hotplug list for why.
This is the archive but I was unable to find the discussion: http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:19:52PM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 17:45:33 Greg KH wrote:
udisks --mount /dev/sdb1
Never do that in a udev rule, it is wrong.
I refer you to the thread recently on the linux-hotplug list for why.
This is the archive but I was unable to find the discussion: http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/
I don't recall the exact thread, sorry, but it's there somewhere. The point is that you don't want to do anything that takes a long time from a udev rule, especially one that can cause other events to fire off, like mounting can do. You want the rule to be fast and ideally, just kick off something else that does the real work. That is why udisks was created the way it was. Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here. good luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 21:10:29 you wrote:
This is the archive but I was unable to find the discussion: http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/
I don't recall the exact thread, sorry, but it's there somewhere.
The point is that you don't want to do anything that takes a long time from a udev rule, especially one that can cause other events to fire off, like mounting can do. You want the rule to be fast and ideally, just kick off something else that does the real work.
That is why udisks was created the way it was.
Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here.
As I know automounting is historically done through udev rules... Otherwise a special resident daemon is needed which is not better than having resident hal. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:14:41AM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 21:10:29 you wrote:
This is the archive but I was unable to find the discussion: http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/
I don't recall the exact thread, sorry, but it's there somewhere.
The point is that you don't want to do anything that takes a long time from a udev rule, especially one that can cause other events to fire off, like mounting can do. You want the rule to be fast and ideally, just kick off something else that does the real work.
That is why udisks was created the way it was.
Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here.
As I know automounting is historically done through udev rules...
History has proved that some things are totally wrong.
Otherwise a special resident daemon is needed which is not better than having resident hal.
Not true at all. If you fail to learn from past mistakes, well, that too is a failure... Just wait to see what happens next with udev. :) greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Saturday 31 March 2012 19:59:49 you wrote:
That is why udisks was created the way it was.
Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here.
As I know automounting is historically done through udev rules...
History has proved that some things are totally wrong.
Even sending dbus messages from udev rules is bad? I do not think sending a dbus message will take much time.
Otherwise a special resident daemon is needed which is not better than having resident hal.
Not true at all.
If you fail to learn from past mistakes, well, that too is a failure...
Just wait to see what happens next with udev. :)
Is there a tricky plan? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:23:44PM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Saturday 31 March 2012 19:59:49 you wrote:
That is why udisks was created the way it was.
Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here.
As I know automounting is historically done through udev rules...
History has proved that some things are totally wrong.
Even sending dbus messages from udev rules is bad? I do not think sending a dbus message will take much time.
No, that is fine, what isn't ok is calling mount directly from a udev rule, that is what I was thinking you were wanting to do. If not, my apologies. good luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Saturday 31 March 2012 21:54:14 you wrote:
Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here.
As I know automounting is historically done through udev rules...
History has proved that some things are totally wrong.
Even sending dbus messages from udev rules is bad? I do not think sending a dbus message will take much time.
No, that is fine, what isn't ok is calling mount directly from a udev rule, that is what I was thinking you were wanting to do. If not, my apologies.
It would be great if somebody could give an example of mounting a drive from command line by sending a dbus message. I then will submit a patch to the default udev rules in openSUSE so to implement desktop-independent automounting without involving any additional residential daemons. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 07:45:45AM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Saturday 31 March 2012 21:54:14 you wrote:
Any further questions you have about this should be on the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list, not here.
As I know automounting is historically done through udev rules...
History has proved that some things are totally wrong.
Even sending dbus messages from udev rules is bad? I do not think sending a dbus message will take much time.
No, that is fine, what isn't ok is calling mount directly from a udev rule, that is what I was thinking you were wanting to do. If not, my apologies.
It would be great if somebody could give an example of mounting a drive from command line by sending a dbus message.
I then will submit a patch to the default udev rules in openSUSE so to implement desktop-independent automounting without involving any additional residential daemons.
Um, I don't think you quite understand what you just asked for, as it's pretty impossible to do what you just asked for. Hint, something has to listen for the dbus message, and what listens for dbus messages? Your fear of daemons is strange... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:33:30 you wrote:
It would be great if somebody could give an example of mounting a drive from command line by sending a dbus message.
I then will submit a patch to the default udev rules in openSUSE so to implement desktop-independent automounting without involving any additional residential daemons.
Um, I don't think you quite understand what you just asked for, as it's pretty impossible to do what you just asked for.
Hint, something has to listen for the dbus message, and what listens for dbus messages?
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 07:40:03PM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:33:30 you wrote:
It would be great if somebody could give an example of mounting a drive from command line by sending a dbus message.
I then will submit a patch to the default udev rules in openSUSE so to implement desktop-independent automounting without involving any additional residential daemons.
Um, I don't think you quite understand what you just asked for, as it's pretty impossible to do what you just asked for.
Hint, something has to listen for the dbus message, and what listens for dbus messages?
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how things work today on the gnome desktop, right? greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:10:15 you wrote:
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how things work today on the gnome desktop, right?
Gnome has its own resident daemon that sends mount requests to udisks. You have three daemons in memory: udisks, udev and gnome mounting daemon. Once automounting is implemented through udev rules, only udev and udisks are needed in memory and automounting works well in any desktop (including, say, IceWM) and in plain console. More universality, less resources consumption. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 Apr 2012 09:10:15 Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 07:40:03PM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev. I'm pretty sure that's exactly how things work today on the gnome desktop, right?
In KDE 3 and 4 a kded module is responsible for listening to udev and applying automount policy. Will -- Will Stephenson, openSUSE Board, Booster, KDE Developer SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:20:19 Will Stephenson wrote:
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev. I'm pretty sure that's exactly how things work today on the gnome desktop, right?
In KDE 3 and 4 a kded module is responsible for listening to udev and applying automount policy.
And KDE3's kded currently does not know about udev and the listening is done by another daemon (this may change soon). Anyway, all functionality for automounting is already existing in udev so there is no need in wasting resources of a desktop for listening anything. Just write the automount policy in udev and all will work by itself. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:26:48PM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:20:19 Will Stephenson wrote:
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev. I'm pretty sure that's exactly how things work today on the gnome desktop, right?
In KDE 3 and 4 a kded module is responsible for listening to udev and applying automount policy.
And KDE3's kded currently does not know about udev and the listening is done by another daemon (this may change soon).
Anyway, all functionality for automounting is already existing in udev so there is no need in wasting resources of a desktop for listening anything. Just write the automount policy in udev and all will work by itself.
the powers that be have decided this a bit different :) - udev is conceptually for creating device nodes and tagging the devices - udisks is the service that abstracts mounting towards desktops etc. Mounting is done by desktop agents... - gnome GVFS - not sure about KDE4 and background mounting with - udisks-glue e.g. is a system daemon that implements automount policies. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:36:49 you wrote:
Udisks? Vincent in this tread said it is possible to mount via sending dbus messages to udisks. Udisks is a daemon, but currently automounting requires additional daemons besides udisks and udev. I'm pretty sure that's exactly how things work today on the gnome desktop, right?
In KDE 3 and 4 a kded module is responsible for listening to udev and applying automount policy.
And KDE3's kded currently does not know about udev and the listening is done by another daemon (this may change soon).
Anyway, all functionality for automounting is already existing in udev so there is no need in wasting resources of a desktop for listening anything. Just write the automount policy in udev and all will work by itself.
the powers that be have decided this a bit different :)
- udev is conceptually for creating device nodes and tagging the devices - udisks is the service that abstracts mounting towards desktops etc.
Mounting is done by desktop agents... - gnome GVFS - not sure about KDE4
and background mounting with - udisks-glue e.g. is a system daemon that implements automount policies.
So udisks-glue is a completely superfluous creature that doubles the functionality already existing in udev. Not to say its huge resources consumption (much greater than devmon automounter, for example), linking to a huge external library libconfuse, need for an extensive .conf file that doubles the purpose of the file /etc/udev/rules.d/81-mount.rules, with its own unique syntax. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 04/01/2012 09:36 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
the powers that be have decided this a bit different:)
- udev is conceptually for creating device nodes and tagging the devices - udisks is the service that abstracts mounting towards desktops etc.
Mounting is done by desktop agents... - gnome GVFS - not sure about KDE4
and background mounting with - udisks-glue e.g. is a system daemon that implements automount policies.
I'm certainly ignorant of the processes to automount, but I do know it has to be tricky. Whatever the process, I think that there has to be a global (root-owned) policy to control automounting. For example, the US Department of Defense requires that desktop computers have automounting turned off for all users of the systems. They're trying to address the security issues in Windows, of course, but innocent bystanders have been swept up by the broad policy. Windows systems can do this, and managers ask if non-Windows desktops are also compliant. Yes, Linux (and openSuSE) are used by various DoD components and it would be a shame if knee jerking managers kicked them off of the networks because they couldn't be configured as security as Windows! I'm sure that other big organizations have similar requirements. Note that DoD also requires that anyone with administrative privileges have special training and industry recognized certifications, so most desktop users don't have admin rights. Regards, Lew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sunday 01 April 2012 13:34:06 Lew Wolfgang wrote:
On 04/01/2012 09:36 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
the powers that be have decided this a bit different:)
- udev is conceptually for creating device nodes and tagging the devices - udisks is the service that abstracts mounting towards desktops etc.
Mounting is done by desktop agents... - gnome GVFS - not sure about KDE4
and background mounting with - udisks-glue e.g. is a system daemon that implements automount policies.
I'm certainly ignorant of the processes to automount, but I do know it has to be tricky. Whatever the process, I think that there has to be a global (root-owned) policy to control automounting.
Udisks uses Polkit to determine if a user is privelegded to mount a given device. The automounter, which runs as a normal user process, just triggers the mounting action, but has neither special privileges nor asks for any. The final decision is done by udisks/polkit. Regards, Stefan -- Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen phone: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Lew Wolfgang
On 04/01/2012 09:36 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
the powers that be have decided this a bit different:)
- udev is conceptually for creating device nodes and tagging the devices - udisks is the service that abstracts mounting towards desktops etc.
Mounting is done by desktop agents... - gnome GVFS - not sure about KDE4
and background mounting with - udisks-glue e.g. is a system daemon that implements automount policies.
I'm certainly ignorant of the processes to automount, but I do know it has to be tricky. Whatever the process, I think that there has to be a global (root-owned) policy to control automounting.
For example, the US Department of Defense requires that desktop computers have automounting turned off for all users of the systems. They're trying to address the security issues in Windows, of course, but innocent bystanders have been swept up by the broad policy. Windows systems can do this, and managers ask if non-Windows desktops are also compliant. Yes, Linux (and openSuSE) are used by various DoD components and it would be a shame if knee jerking managers kicked them off of the networks because they couldn't be configured as security as Windows! I'm sure that other big organizations have similar requirements.
Note that DoD also requires that anyone with administrative privileges have special training and industry recognized certifications, so most desktop users don't have admin rights.
Regards, Lew
Given that Stuxnet was malware that spread via thumbdrives primarily, some US companies simply make it a major policy violation to connect any thumb drive to a windows PC. (ie. close to a firing offense). Others use blocking techniques to make it technically difficult. And others use loggers that log every file copy to or from a thumb drive. I never thought to ask their policy for connecting thumb drives to linux desktops. Nor of the logging requirements. If these policies effect linux desktops, then centralized management seems critical. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012, à 07:02 +0400, Ilya Chernykh a écrit :
There is a very much negative review of udisks2 http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/ which claims that udisks2 is a Gnome-specific tool and will render many applications incompatible until rewritten.
If this is true I would very much oppose including udisks2 in openSUSE without a thorough preparation.
What do you think about this?
I didn't even bother to read the blog post because:
- your summary of the post makes me feel it's just a rant, and I'm not interested in rants
It is but you should read it nevertheless. And also the linked blog post that tells why udisks had to be rewritten. Sounds like it got rewritten just for the fun of trying out some new cool libs.
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same time
Which is silly. A simple operation like requesting to mount a disk has to be considered a basic operating system service. It doesn't make sense to have several competing deamons implement that. It also doesn't make sense to change the function signature for that operation all the time. There needs to be a stable API for such a feature. GNOME is not the only user of the function. Think of it like a basic shared library, just implemented via DBus. It's probably fine if Mr. Z decides that the model he used in the backend is suboptimal and that he needs to rewrite everything in order for the disk partitioning front-end of GNOME to be even more prettier. The rewrite should keep the common API parts stable though. Shared library speak: adding new functions is fine, modifying or deleting existing ones is not. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 15:12:19 Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Which is silly. A simple operation like requesting to mount a disk has to be considered a basic operating system service. It doesn't make sense to have several competing deamons implement that. It also doesn't make sense to change the function signature for that operation all the time. There needs to be a stable API for such a feature. GNOME is not the only user of the function. Think of it like a basic shared library, just implemented via DBus. It's probably fine if Mr. Z decides that the model he used in the backend is suboptimal and that he needs to rewrite everything in order for the disk partitioning front-end of GNOME to be even more prettier. The rewrite should keep the common API parts stable though. Shared library speak: adding new functions is fine, modifying or deleting existing ones is not.
I also wonder why it was necessary to change the console commands from udisks --mount /dev/sdc1 to udisksctl mount --block-device /dev/sdc1 --no-user-interaction Is it so important to change the command file name and remove the "--" before "mount"? Now devmon script will not work and I have to rewrite. Of course some people will pop up and say "this is because you're maintaining dead software, just use Gnome or KDE4". But is there a point for any software to rewrite on regular basis? For example I am sure that those people who are dealing with KDE3 and Trinity will rewrite the mediamanager to support udisks2. This is out ofquestion and tit was confirmed to me today by a e-mail. But the problem is they are still using Ubuntu and Gentoo which still include hal. They did not patch it even for udisks-1 because it is not the top priority for them under Ubuntu, and openSUSE already is dropping udisks-1 in favor of udisks-2. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 30 March 2012 13:12:19 Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012, à 07:02 +0400, Ilya Chernykh a écrit :
There is a very much negative review of udisks2 http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/ which claims that udisks2 is a Gnome-specific tool and will render many applications incompatible until rewritten.
If this is true I would very much oppose including udisks2 in openSUSE without a thorough preparation.
What do you think about this?
I didn't even bother to read the blog post because: - your summary of the post makes me feel it's just a rant, and I'm not
interested in rants
It is but you should read it nevertheless. And also the linked blog post that tells why udisks had to be rewritten. Sounds like it got rewritten just for the fun of trying out some new cool libs.
There are several reasons for switching from dbus-glib to GDbus. Most important, dbus-glib is deprecated, its original authors won't maintain it, and it is a security critical component. Second, DGbus offers several things which makes life easier for developers. The o.f.dbus.PropertiesChanged() signal and the ObjectManager come for free when using GDbus, whereas nobody is using these (or limits its use to the absolute necessary) with dbus-glib (nor with QtDBus, as it lacks support therefor). If you look at all the properties exported by udisks, all anounced via a single Changed() signal, you know why PropertiesChanged(...) is much saner. The typical use of Changed() 1. udisks emits Changed() 2. everyone interested calls GetAll() 3. udisks sends all properties to the receivers via unicast. On a typical desktop, there will be several receivers, most probably each instance of a filemanager plus at least a single automounting/device notifier daemon.
- we're not removing udisks, we're simply adding udisks2
- udisks2 and udisks are parallel-installable and can run at the same
time
Which is silly. A simple operation like requesting to mount a disk has to be considered a basic operating system service. It doesn't make sense to have several competing deamons implement that. It also doesn't make sense to change the function signature for that operation all the time. There needs to be a stable API for such a feature. GNOME is not the only user of the function. Think of it like a basic shared library, just implemented via DBus. It's probably fine if Mr. Z decides that the model he used in the backend is suboptimal and that he needs to rewrite everything in order for the disk partitioning front-end of GNOME to be even more prettier. The rewrite should keep the common API parts stable though. Shared library speak: adding new functions is fine, modifying or deleting existing ones is not.
Sorry, you seem to misunderstand udisks(2). It provides first a single point to get notifications about all disk related events, and second an interface to request disk related actions. If you request mounting via udisk1 and udisk2 at the same time, you are asking for trouble, but the same is true for two concurrent requests on udisks1 (which e.g. happens on multiseat with automounting). Neither udisk version is doing any mounting on its own behalve, so nothing to worry about. As you can see, running both versions side by side is fine, and only the needed instance will be started by DBus. Sticking with your library analogy, these are two major versions of the same, binary incompatible, functionaly similar. Install both, if you have to. Regards, Stefan -- Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen phone: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Stefan Brüns wrote:
[...] If you request mounting via udisk1 and udisk2 at the same time, you are asking for trouble, but the same is true for two concurrent requests on udisks1 (which e.g. happens on multiseat with automounting).
o_O
Neither udisk version is doing any mounting on its own behalve, so nothing to worry about.
As you can see, running both versions side by side is fine, and only the needed instance will be started by DBus.
The problem is both instances are needed. The desktop uses udisks2 and any scripts, third party applications etc may still use udisks1. None of the technical details you listed explain why udisks2 can't at least offer a compat interface for most the crucial feature ie mounting devices. DBus actually provides means for that, ie use different path components. You also didn't explain why udisk2 renamed all polkit actions too. So an admin who uses custom policies has to adjust them for udisks2, again. Doesn't make sense to encode the implementation name into such basic actions anyways.
Sticking with your library analogy, these are two major versions of the same, binary incompatible, functionaly similar. Install both, if you have to.
Yeah, and see the system crash and burn if both are used at the same time, see libjpeg, openssl etc examples. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (21)
-
Basil Chupin -
Brian K. White -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Felix Miata -
Freek de Kruijf -
Graham Anderson -
Greg Freemyer -
Greg KH -
Greg KH -
Ilya Chernykh -
Jos Poortvliet -
Ken Schneider - openSUSE -
Lew Wolfgang -
Ludwig Nussel -
Marcus Meissner -
Robert Xu -
Stefan Brüns -
Sven Burmeister -
todd rme -
Vincent Untz -
Will Stephenson