Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64

Thread: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hockeytown, MI
    Beans
    561
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Paddy Landau View Post
    Thanks for the reply, Castrojo. If the developers can fall back anyway, and you are white-listing Java and Wine apps anyway, why can't we simply white list other applications? Will there come a time when Java and Wine apps no longer work?
    The fallback isn't for Ubuntu, the fallback is so the _application itself_ can run properly on systems that don't have appindicator support (like older distros or distros that choose to not support appindicators). This way app authors can support appindicators by adding support for it instead of replacing the old method.

    Wine and Java apps have always had integration problems with desktops that are more major than tray icons, we don't really have a solution to that, and there's not much we can really do there.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Beans
    2,693
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    This seems like a really really bad change and it will come back to bite Ubuntu. People who use apps that won't get support for an indicator will be forced to use another OS. People don't like having to try to find another app or chase developers to add support for things like this - they would rather move OS.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Beans
    184

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Gotta agree with ELD. I actually *like* Unity... I'm the guy that defends it every week in the Linux Action Show IRC... and all this change did for me is make me appreciate how nice KDE is nowadays.



    I hope there's still a chance the backwards compatibility will be reconsidered. Until then, I'm not recommending Ubuntu to my friends because I don't want to hear them whining at me if the trayicon for their app doesn't work and can't be whitelisted.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hockeytown, MI
    Beans
    561
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    .. and all this change did for me is make me appreciate how nice KDE is nowadays.
    Ok so is anyone actually reading my posts or the spec? Appindicators are based on the KDE spec so that the two interoperate. The whole point is to have the applications work the same in both environments.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Beans
    184

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Quote Originally Posted by castrojo View Post
    Ok so is anyone actually reading [...] the spec? Appindicators are based on the KDE spec so that the two interoperate. The whole point is to have the applications work the same in both environments.
    And are you understanding that the apps still work in KDE (and every other DE) but not Unity?

    The other DEs honor the spec, but they don't kill legacy apps.

    I'm a huge Canonical/Ubuntu fan, but this is wrong. This isn't even just Windows 8 wrong, this is "We're the Gnome team and you're going to do it this one way" wrong. If Unity was losing the backwards compatibility to save some memory, I'd accept it... but the feature is still there, just locked out to users that would rather use Unity.
    Last edited by 3vi1; February 9th, 2013 at 02:52 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hockeytown, MI
    Beans
    561
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    The other DEs honor the spec, but they don't kill legacy apps.
    I think you're blowing it out of proportion, a handful of apps can be fixed with relatively little effort. Desktops provide integration points for applications, and those APIs change and update over time. The Dash API changes, the indicator and messaging menus all get minor bumps over time, this is no different than any other software project.

    We've had a concerted effort for the last 3 years (and _two_ LTS releases) to help app authors move their apps over, most of them support it, even closed source applications like Dropbox and Steam. There's always going to be a few apps at the last end of an adoption curve, but luckily by pointing out the new specs to app authors you can help them support it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Beans
    184

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Quote Originally Posted by castrojo View Post
    I think you're blowing it out of proportion, a handful of apps can be fixed with relatively little effort.
    I think you're not taking it seriously. The apps I use, don't work with Unity now, period.

    I've been writing software for 30+ years, I'm quite aware of the environment and all sides of the equation. From a user perspective, the apps didn't break - Unity did. It's an arbitrary blockage not enforced by any other desktop.
    Last edited by 3vi1; February 9th, 2013 at 02:39 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Beans
    13,014

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    This is not atypical of unity dev, it goes on it's way according to plan or plans yet known.
    If something is removed that Some like or find useful then generally too bad for them.
    (it's possible for decisions to be reversed, maybe this will, maybe not.
    At some point you just move on & use what's provided or what's provided that can be modded or possibly move on from ubuntu/unity if it becomes something one no longer likes or finds interesting..

    In this case the systray is still enabled (ATM), only that users can't add to as the schema is gone as is a few bits add. code (not that much really.

    So as users you obviously file bugs & hope for the best but best bet is to just put it back yourselves or if still viable thru a ppa at release

    Again ATM the commit or guts of can be reverted or apps can be added to the systray which is still there as before with the schema (whitelist.

    Or apps can be added back directly in the current source & 'told' to be available in the systray.

    Ex. - I want vlc & audacious back in tray so in the source -
    unity-6.12.0daily13.02.07/panel/PanelTray.cpp line 33.
    Edited the blue to reflect an array of 4, added red, built unity, works fine, vlc & aud are back in the systray
    Code:
    const std::array<std::string, 4> WHITELIST {{ "JavaEmbeddedFrame", "Wine", "Vlc", "Audacious" }};

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Beans
    4,265
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    Quote Originally Posted by mc4man View Post
    Code:
    const std::array<std::string, 4> WHITELIST {{ "JavaEmbeddedFrame", "Wine", "Vlc", "Audacious" }};
    Gasp! This is hard-coded? Really? The white-list is hard-coded into the program? Are we back in the early 1980's?
    Problems with WINE?
    Full Circle Magazine :: Confused "allot"? :: Cheap Linux stickers
    In my day, we had outdoors in which to run, play, and socialise. Now we have computers to do those.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Beans
    39

    Re: New Unity, whitelist disabled = bad

    I think the main argument for not hardcoding the whitelist is the following: You cannot remove the functionality anyways due to Java and Wine not willing/able to adjust to the new indicator-system. Hence it does not hurt you to give users the ability to edit the whitelist themselves. This *feature* is not exposed via a GUI anyways, which makes it "hard" for lot of people to whitelist this feature. This alone creates pressure to adopt the new system.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •