Re: New module proposal: LightDM

[Robert Ancell <robert ancell gmail com>]

>> - LightDM is a cross-platform solution.  Ubuntu is planning to switch
>> to it this cycle, and other distributions have expressed interest in
>> the project.  By sharing this piece of infrastructure GNOME can spend
>> more time working on important GNOME components.  LightDM is aligned
>> with freedesktop.org.
>
> There isn't a lot of value in having a core GNOME component be cross
> platform or cross desktop.  There certainly isn't any value in that
> for a user.  There are, however, a number of reasons why this isn't a
> good thing.  GDM was explicitly designed to be a core GNOME component.
>  The primary goal is to have a consistent and unified experience from
> power on to power off.  Having a cross desktop component in there
> doesn't really make any sense to the end user.  It doesn't match the
> look and feel, the interactions are different, the default settings
> and behaviors are different.  That is what GDM circa 2005 was like.
> And it wasn't good.

There is a huge amount of value in having shared components where
appropriate.  And this does have a direct value for users - if we
spend time duplicating common elements then that is time not spent
working on the the part the users do see.  LightDM makes a very
explicit boundary between the core aspects and the UI, I really fail
to see how using a shared component for the lower level has any
negative effect on users.

>> - I am confident that the LightDM architecture is simpler than GDM.
>> Some indicators of this:
>>  - Smaller code size
>>  - Well defined interface between greeter and session
>>  - Less dependencies
>>  - Less internal interfaces
>>  Architecture can be a personal opinion, and I encourage those with
>> programming experience to look at the code and decide for themselves.
>> Note that LightDM is not lighter in features, but in architecture.
>
> There is no value to the user in a different internal architecture.

And yet your previous statement just stated that the GDM architecture
is required for a consistent and unified experience.  Which is it?

>> - LightDM is a platform for future work and is investigating the use
>> of new technologies like Wayland.
>
> Yes Wayland is very awesome.  I fail to see how this is a good reason
> to switch to a new login manager.

Like all the given reasons, they add up to a complete weighting of the
pros and cons of switching.  If something is considered awesome then
there is probably some benefit to it being on the roadmap for the
future.

>  * I don't see any compelling reason to architecture astronaut a new
> display manager

I am completely sick of the lack of respect shown by some in the GNOME
community to alternate viewpoints.  I'm tired of being compared to an
attention-deficit teenager, told I have not-invented-here syndrome,
told that the team I work on only chose this project because we want
to be different to GNOME, told that by not continuing on existing
codebases (regardless of how much time and effort I have spent on
that) I am betraying GNOME.  It's just beyond acceptable.

I was not going to propose this project because I am sick of this sort
of unprofessional response, especially from leaders in the community.
It was the insistence of other leaders in the GNOME community that I
did end up proposing and the continual complaints from users,
sysadmins, customers, designers, and programmers about the login
experience.

>  * None of the stated reasons have a significant user visible benefit to GNOME

You really need to really consider that this model of what benefits
users is an over-simplification.

>  * We really ought to be spending our time on higher level, bigger
> picture integration issues

This is not a zero-sum game.  We are not a company that just assigns
work items out.  I'm not asking you to spend any time on this, but I
am offering for me to.

>  * If there are problems with GDM we should just fix them

There have been problems for years and years and years.  There is some
point where you need to reconsider if that strategy is appropriate.