Re: New module proposal: LightDM

[Ray Strode <halfline gmail com>]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com> wrote:
> I agree that GDM's deep integration with GNOME is one of its great
> features.  GDM is clearly the login manager of choice if you want a very
> consistent experience between the login manager and the GNOME desktop.
> However, not everyone really needs or wants the degree of integration
> that GDM provides with GNOME.
I feel like GNOME should be catering to GNOME's users, and we're doing
a disservice to them if we don't provide integration.

> It should, I think, be possible to define a lighter degree of GNOME
> integration for a display manager that intends to be a bit more desktop
> neutral/agnostic than GDM, but still be a part of the "GNOME Desktop".
I disagree.  I think that's going the wrong direction.

> Think about Ephipany.  Users who really want tight GNOME integration
> may prefer Epiphany, but some users may prefer other web browsers for
> various reasons.
I don't think that's a fair card to play.  Firefox has a lot more
marketshare than GNOME, has a ton of development resources, etc, so
distros embrace it to provide brand recognition, get security updates,
etc.  Also, back when this was a hot button issue, you needed firefox
installed to run epiphany.  Firefox also goes to great lengths to try
to integrate as well as it can with GNOME.  Anyway, I kind of wish
distros embraced ephipany more.  The mozilla foundation is doing a lot
for the open source community (really, a ton, more than anyone else
problably), the health of the internet, etc, but their goals don't
always perfectly align with GNOME's or distros.  Also, they have a
powerful trademark they need to protect, which complicates things in
various ways I don't want to get into here.

> I thought the new release model was all about choice and flexibility.
Nope, I think you misunderstood (or I did).  The new release model is
about putting even apps on an even footing.  It doesn't apply to the
core of the OS.  Users should be able to pick which apps they want,
not which window manager, settings daemon, or login window they want.
>From a desktop point of view, these things are central to defining
what the GNOME is.  They are the "OS" which defines the stuff around
the apps.  Our mantra should be "integration, coherency, consistency,
just works" for the OS.  Adam Jackson did an awesome email a while
back called "Linux is not about choice" that's mildly relevant, so
I'll post it:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html

We really need to band together and focus on making our OS better, not
more flexible, just better.  I don't want to ship a bucket of parts to
our users and leave them to fend for themselves. I want the user to
get something refined, cohesive, and out-of-their way so it fades into
the background while they're trying to get their job done (whatever
job that may be).   They shouldn't have think about the computer when
they use the computer as a tool to do something else.   We're not
there yet.  It should be an important goal.  The only way we'll get
there is if we work less on modularizing and more on integrating.

> I would think there should be room enough for choices.
>
>> Have you talked to the other projects about this?  We had some
>> discussions some time back with Oswald (KDE developer) about
>> standardizing on one display manager a few years ago:
>>
>> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gdm-list/2007-October/msg00013.html
>> (added him to cc list)
>
> Wasn't that the same discussion where Oswald said that he would only
> accept a standardized display manager if it didn't regress any current
> KDM features and if we did all the work?
Right, that's why I was wondering if Robert had talked to him yet,
when he mentioned he wants LightDM to be cross-desktop.

>> Anyway, I'm obviously in favor of keeping GDM in GNOME.
>
> So am I, but I'd think there should be room for more than one display
> manager choice in GNOME.
Again, I disagree here for the reasons mentioned above.  We need to
focus, not splinter.

--Ray