FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Desktop

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-27-2012, 03:50 AM
"Jorge O. Castro"
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> If anything this is a great improvement for power users that want to
>> configure unity but don't want to risk using an unsupported tool.
>
> And a huge step back until MyUnity reaches feature parity with CCSM.

A huge step back in what? If people know they want the hard core deep
features of CCSM then they know how to install a PPA.

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 04:00 AM
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
<a.starr.b@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - Since it's settings are separate from Unity a "unity --reset"
>> doesn't fix it, you have to blow away .compiz or some other dotfile
>> directories to get a desktop back.
>
> Is this true? I just tested this by exporting my compiz settings using
> CCSM and running a "unity --reset" All my custom settings seem to have
> been cleared. Using CCSM, I was then easily able to re-import my
> backed up settings and restore them all. The unity python wrapper
> seems to try and wipe all your compiz settings if --reset is used. It
> calls:
>
> subprocess.Popen(["gconftool-2", "--recursive-unset", "/apps/compiz-1"])
>
> Is there a bug in unity's --reset option where this doesn't work in
> some cases?

And the answer is yes. There is an open bug against unity where "unity
--reset" fails if the Unity plugin is disabled.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/881639

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

Ubuntu Developer <https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething>
Debian Maintainer
<http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=a.starr.b%40gmail.com>
PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 08:07 AM
Didier Roche
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

Le 26/01/2012 18:21, Alan Bell a écritÂ*:
On
26/01/12 16:28, Jorge O. Castro wrote:


- It's possible to accidentally uncheck
the Unity plugin, breaking the


user's desktop.



Maybe make it a bit harder to do that, principally by removing the
depends on largedesktop. The reason people uncheck unity by
accident is because they want to turn on the cube. I think if you
just drop the depends line then it won't disable unity when you
change your workspace switcher from wall to the cube. If you
uninstall wall and cube then the workspace switcher stops working
which is logical enough. If you want to make it impossible to
disable unity then you can probably do that



It still will. The dependency on largedesktop has been done to
explicitely letting people to get the cube:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/711561.
We need to have unity depending on either cube or wall for some
plugin loading order that ccsm can't handle right otherwise.



The issue in this particular case is a ccsm/libcompizconfig one.
Basically unity depends on largedesktop (features that I patched
upstream to be provided by the 2 above plugins, cube and wall…). You
enable cube, cube conflicts with wall, wall is deactivated (cube is
still not enabled at this stage). Then, ccsm/libcompizconfig tells
"oh wait wait, there is no largedesktop provider anymore, I need to
remove unity". It displays the warning and people check "yeah, go
ahead", then cube is enabled (but no more unity).



> The suggestion to drop ccsm as a whole does feel a bit like
"Unity doesn't work right with other plugins, lets get rid of all
the others" when educating Unity to play nice with it's friends
would be a much better solution.


As you can see above, this is far from being a "unity not playing
nice with its friends".



There is a need for transactional handling there so that
dependencies are just checked at the end. From what I heard from
upstream, it will be quite a lot of work and really not trivial, but
contributions are more than welcome there. However, seeing the
number of real recent contribution on ccsm (12 commits that impacted
the code in the last year, 28 in the last *two* years! 38 if we go
until the last 3 years!), we can see there is basically no
maintainance on it. (http://git.compiz.org/compiz/compizconfig/ccsm/log/).



This is just one example where ccsm is playing bad, there is as well
the case when if you set the real default for an enum setting, this
makes compiz crashing. Consequently, and only because of ccsm, we
have to put a fake setting for it in the profile. Another big issue
we had with ccsm (because of compizconfig-python) is that people
clicked on "preferences", then, because of bad data given, ccsm
fallback to the "default" profile which has no unity (which is setup
on purpose to allow people using compiz without unity):

https://bugs.launchpad.net/compiz-compizconfig-gconf/+bug/874799

This has his a lot of people, including at UDS.



Didier



--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 08:30 AM
Sebastien Bacher
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

Le 27/01/2012 03:42, Mathieu Comandon a écrit :
Removing ccsm only benefits users that would go change random settings
without knowing how to restore a working desktop.


Right, the not-so-technical users following forum posts from the
internet are the ones who got screwed and the ones we should care most
about, users who are technical enough to deal with the side effects of
ccsm are also probably technical enough to go through some extra steps
to get it installed.


Sebastien Bacher

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 08:50 AM
"N. Riesco - GMail"
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

Here are my two cents...

If the problem is that CCSM may render the desktop unusable, why don't
we do something similar to what it's done for changing the display settings?


Whenever the CCSM configuration is changed, let's pop up a window and if
the user fails to confirm the change, let's revert to the previous
configuration.


Hope this suggestion helps.

Nico


On 27/01/12 04:50, Jorge O. Castro wrote:

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Chow Loong Jin<hyperair@ubuntu.com> wrote:

If anything this is a great improvement for power users that want to
configure unity but don't want to risk using an unsupported tool.


And a huge step back until MyUnity reaches feature parity with CCSM.


A huge step back in what? If people know they want the hard core deep
features of CCSM then they know how to install a PPA.




--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 09:12 AM
Sean McNamara
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Jorge O. Castro <jorge@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> With tools like MyUnity now in universe, and didrocks putting basic
> configuration in the control panel I'd like to propose the removal of
> compizconfig-settingsmanager.
>
> I don't mean "stop telling people to use it" or "add a warning", I
> mean total removal from the archive until the tool is either better
> tested or doesn't break people's configuration. Here are some of the
> problems with the tool.
>
> - It's possible to accidentally uncheck the Unity plugin, breaking the
> user's desktop.
> - It has a load of checkboxes for plugins that we don't support,
> allowing infinite combinations of untested options, which result in
> either a broken desktop or a misconfigured one.
> - People report these bugs, and instead of fixing real bugs we have to
> deal with corner case bugs for things we never plan on supporting.
> - Since it's settings are separate from Unity a "unity --reset"
> doesn't fix it, you have to blow away .compiz or some other dotfile
> directories to get a desktop back.
> - Alex Chiang has documented some of the issues he's run into here:
> http://askubuntu.com/a/80590/235
> - I'm sure at UDS you've seen didrocks show you one of the ways it
> breaks even when using parts of it that shouldn't break.
>
> MyUnity is a better user-facing tool anyway for those that want to
> play, it would be a shame to have the ccsm tool ship in an LTS. If
> anyone cares about it they can plop it in a PPA.

As someone else already mentioned, I'm in favor of adding dpkg rules
that prevent installation of CCSM alongside Unity. Why prevent people
using Xfce, LXDE, Mate, etc. from using CCSM, when it's far less buggy
when it's not interacting in destructive ways with Unity?

Removing it from the archive does not seem like the Ubuntu way at all.
Rather, I can practically guarantee you that there will be a huge
rallying cry in the power user community that removing it was unfair
and poorly thought-out, and that this outcry will spread to regular
users who don't understand the situation in the first place.

If you want to work on MyUnity or whatever to get it up to feature
parity with CCSM, please do so. But Ubuntu has jumped the gun on the
issue of "what we have is bad but featureful, so we're going to
replace it with something that's good but feature-deprived" on more
than one occasion, and *every single time* the distribution loses
users and suffers publicity setbacks. Especially for an LTS, I just
can't get my mind around how this makes any sense at all, particularly
for distros like Xubuntu and Lubuntu where compiz can spruce up an
otherwise spartan desktop. OTOH, if you just make it so that apt and
dpkg won't permit installing CCSM when Unity is installed, you're
completely solving your original problem, which is to prevent users
from installing CCSM and breaking Unity, while allowing the tool to be
useful for other desktops. Of course, *someone* is going to try
downloading the deb and running dpkg --force, but by the time they've
gotten to that step, they're essentially accepting any risk of system
breakage that may result. You can't protect users from themselves on
an open source platform; it is simply not possible, not advisable, and
far more likely to cause a backlash in the attempt than to lead to a
more stable distribution.

Honestly, I think "Ubuntu is broken" is by far the lesser evil
compared to "Ubuntu is ignoring the needs of their users" (this latter
one WILL come up on very popular websites if CCSM is removed from the
archive).

-Sean

>
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 09:32 AM
Dean Sas
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:30, Sebastien Bacher <seb128@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Le 27/01/2012 03:42, Mathieu Comandon a écrit :
>
>> Removing ccsm only benefits users that would go change random settings
>> without knowing how to restore a working desktop.
>
>
> Right, the not-so-technical users following forum posts from the internet
> are the ones who got screwed and the ones we should care most about, users
> who are technical enough to deal with the side effects of ccsm are also
> probably technical enough to go through some extra steps to get it
> installed.

After ccsm is removed from the archive, the not-so-technical users
will still follow forum posts from the internet, except the forum post
will now also include copy & paste instructions on how to enable the
ppa.

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 09:40 AM
Sebastien Bacher
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

Le 27/01/2012 11:12, Sean McNamara a écrit :


that prevent installation of CCSM alongside Unity. Why prevent people
using Xfce, LXDE, Mate, etc. from using CCSM, when it's far less buggy
when it's not interacting in destructive ways with Unity?
Dropping ccsm doesn't prevent anybody to use xfce, lxde or anything
else, and no ccsm is not less buggy out of unity, the issue is that it
exposes lot of buggy options that users wouldn't know about and try to
tweak if they were not there. Users do try those options, report bugs,
and the compiz buglist is so spammed about corner cases and broken
options that it's making working on compiz bugs or figuring real issues
hards.

Removing it from the archive does not seem like the Ubuntu way at all.
Rather, I can practically guarantee you that there will be a huge
rallying cry in the power user community that removing it was unfair
and poorly thought-out, and that this outcry will spread to regular
users who don't understand the situation in the first place.
Well, maybe we should stop favourite vocal minorities over the rest of
the userbase? Sure those users will do extra noise, but at the end 95%
of the users would be glad to have a better maintained compiz with extra
stability.

users and suffers publicity setbacks. Especially for an LTS, I just
can't get my mind around how this makes any sense at all, particularly
for distros like Xubuntu and Lubuntu where compiz can spruce up an
otherwise spartan desktop. OTOH, if you just make it so that apt and
dpkg won't permit installing CCSM when Unity is installed,


Those derivatives don't use compiz and the issue is not specific to unity.

compared to "Ubuntu is ignoring the needs of their users" (this latter
one WILL come up on very popular websites if CCSM is removed from the
archive).



That's your view, most people out there don't care about online rants
but care about having a computer they can use.


--
Sebastien Bacher

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 09:42 AM
Sebastien Bacher
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

Le 27/01/2012 11:32, Dean Sas a écrit :

After ccsm is removed from the archive, the not-so-technical users
will still follow forum posts from the internet, except the forum post
will now also include copy& paste instructions on how to enable the
ppa.
Well at least then we can start advertizing to not install random cracks
from a ppa or not complain about brokeness when you do that, it's harder
to justify shipping broken tools in the archive though.


Sebastien Bacher

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 
Old 01-27-2012, 10:14 AM
Didier Roche
 
Default It's time to jettison CCSM

Le 27/01/2012 03:16, Andrew
Starr-Bochicchio a écrit :


On Thu, Jan 26,
2012 at 8:04 PM, Marc Deslauriers


<marc.deslauriers@canonical.com>*
wrote:



Of course, the
correct way to solve this issue is far more complicated


than just removing a package from the archive, it require
solving


bugs, bringing new code in Unity while avoiding unwanted
side effects


on compiz and basically requires more manpower.



If someone would step up and fix CCSM so a novice user can't
mess up


their desktop with two mouse clicks, we wouldn't be having
this


discussion.



Just what would that look like? As someone who hasn't run into
these


issues, it's hard to tell from this thread what would be enough
for


people to consider CCSM "fixed." A lot of the opposition to CCSM
seems


to be based on the nature of the tool itself rather than any
specific


bugs (though judging from Launchpad it certainly has its share
of


those). Are there specific plugins or options that are
considered


harmful or especially problematic? Are these found in the core
plugins


that are installed by default? Perhaps they should be broken out
into


one of the universe plugin-extras packages? Or are they in one
of the


universe packages already? Maybe we could better split the
plugin


packages?





They are already split sincce Oneiric. For plugins that are
"officially suppported" upstream, we only install those that are
used with the unity session right now (25 plugins exactly). Those
are installed by compiz-plugins-default and
compiz-plugins-main-default, the others are in compiz-plugins and
compiz-plugins-main which are not installed by default (but are
still there if you upgraded your machine from a version
pre-oneiric).





- Since it's
settings are separate from Unity a "unity --reset"


doesn't fix it, you have to blow away .compiz or some other
dotfile


directories to get a desktop back.



Is this true? I just tested this by exporting my compiz settings
using


CCSM and running a "unity --reset" All my custom settings seem
to have


been cleared. Using CCSM, I was then easily able to re-import my


backed up settings and restore them all. The unity python
wrapper


seems to try and wipe all your compiz settings if --reset is
used. It


calls:




subprocess.Popen(["gconftool-2", "--recursive-unset",
"/apps/compiz-1"])




Is there a bug in unity's --reset option where this doesn't work
in


some cases?* Should the option to reset all options to their
default


be made more prominent in CCSM?





No, Jorge wasn't quite right on this one, unity --reset indeed
reset the whole compiz settings, not just the unity one









- I'm sure at
UDS you've seen didrocks show you one of the ways it


breaks even when using parts of it that shouldn't break.



I'll take his word on this.






I'd love to hear some more specific issues.





I've added some on my other post in this thread.




Cheers,


Didier







--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:59 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org