On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:23:47 -0500, > Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Bruno, >> An end user is of course free to do whatever she/he wants, it is open >> source after all, but having interchangeable login managers is not something >> I think should be a officially supported feature as it adds to the test >> matrix without significant gain. There has been a lot of threads about >> general usability and stability of Fedora here, and one way of improving on >> that is reducing the number of moving parts in the system to make life >> easier for our testers and also make integration work by developers more >> focused. > > > I guess that depends on what you mean by supported. I don't care whether or > not they are signed off on for the release, but just that they are packaged > in Fedora and work reasonably most of the time. gdm doesn't work on (and > won't ever work for them because of graphics requirements) two of my > machines and I need to use other login managers (currently kdm). This will > turn into three machines if Fedora gets to the point I can run stock Fedora > on my XO. I agree here, I use to use gdm in the SoaS spin but since fallback mode was dropped it doesn't work on a lot of the devices that we actively support and are used. It also has issues on a lot of ARM hardware and given that XOs are some of the largest single deployment of both Fedora and GNOME technologies I think supporting a single display manager will have issues. It might be OK if that display manager actively supported all the HW that Fedora will run on but at the moment that's not the case. Peter -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
