[64studio-devel] New kernel & GNOME backports

[tim hall]

Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> |--==> Daniel James writes:
>
>   DJ> Hi Free,
>   >>We could try to
>   >>backport individual applications (e.g. synaptic) instead of the whole
>   >>suite.
>
>   DJ> Alternatively, we could plan to backport the whole of Gnome 2.20 when
>   DJ> it becomes available, with 64 Studio 3.0 in mind.
>
>   DJ> However I think we have to be careful not to go 'release crazy' :-)
>
>   DJ> People sometimes say Debian has a long release cycle, but if you look
>   DJ> at what Microsoft does, they put out a major version of Windows every
>   DJ> 3-5
>   DJ> years and a bugfix/security update every 1-2 years. This gives the
>   DJ> Windows application developers, hardware vendors and everyone else a
>   DJ> realistic amount of time to adjust to the new version. Even then, some
>   DJ> people feel like they *have* to upgrade Windows too often.
>
> You're right, but compared to Windows the Linux desktop environments a
> relatively young, and sometimes it can make the difference which
> version of GNOME or KDE you are using. Anyway, according to the report
> we received, the changes between GNOME 2.14 and 2.18 are not so
> terrific, that we absolutely want them.
>   

I confess there are few improvements in 2.18 that I can be objective 
about. It's little things that I like, like the theme manager no longer 
requesting confirmation when you drop a new version of a theme on it, it 
has saved me a bag full of mouse clicks and widget redrawings while I'm 
theme designing. It does _seem_ a bit shinier and cleaner, but that is 
my highly subjective opinion at the moment. It would look good in 
publicity to keep a more recent version number, but the critical issue 
is really whether users can continue recording their album or whatever 
without having to get under the bonnet and fix things. As Hector Centeno 
suggested in an earlier thread, improvements and fixes may come to light 
through extended use. However, unless that does prove to be the case, 
the work involved in Free maintaining a backported version of GNOME is 
probably not the best use of time and energy. =|

I would like to keep Synaptic 0.60, I'll have a look at it later and 
check whether the bug reports on earlier versions are reproduceable for me.

The argument as to whether to stick with etch or move up to lenny will 
be entirely pragmatic, we know that studios require utter system 
stability, but multimedia software for Linux is still young and support 
for new hardware (like firewire, USB and wireless) and realtime 
capabilities are particularly important, this is more a kernel issue 
than anything else, but the need for kernel compatibility with the rest 
of the Operating System has forced adoption of the testing branch in the 
past, fairly soon after changes in the base system have settled down. 
This may slow down with increased software stability, but we will always 
need to keep up with new hardware.

I guess our primary concerns are: functionality relating to multimedia 
use; hardware support; and fixing known bugs. In short, maintaining a 
productive usable system, which oddly enough is what we already have. 
We'd be better off consolidating 64studio-2.x with a new kernel and 
bugfixes for the rest of the summer (and enjoy a bit of sun while it 
lasts) and investigate feature upgrades in the Autumn with a view to 
3.0. I might be able to come up with some objective arguments about 
GNOME by then. ;)

Only my opinion, but it's _all_ mine!

cheers,

tim
/|\