[Spice-devel] Questions regarding Bug 62033 - Means to detect local-only

[Fedor Lyakhov]

I agree about animations, apparently the setting doesn't affect
gnome-shell... I'll consider a feature request of something like a
setting 'bells-and-whistles', so, when disabled, Gnome accepts that
user is serious about disabling all this stuff :) It shouldn't be
accessible with dconf-editor though because it isn't good to scare
users with such powerfull settings (just look at KDE.. boo!)

On a serious note, the bug I'm trying to fix is
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62033, requested by
Zeeshan within context of
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680195 in
gnome-settings-daemon. And there was some work related to animations
as well.
Revisiting this I now start thinking originators won't like our
approach of changing settings directly, as they already do this in
gnome-settings-daemon, and just wanted an interface from
spice-vdagent...



On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Marc-André Lureau <mlureau at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Mensaje original -----
>> Thanks for the answer, Marc-André!
>>
>> Few comments inline.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Marc-André Lureau
>> <marcandre.lureau at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Fedor Lyakhov <fedor.lyakhov at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Hi everyone,
>> > >
>> > > I've made a bit of progress on this issue - "disable wallpaper" and
>> > > "disable
>> > > animations" somewhat work with Gnome3. The code is very simple:
>> > >
>> > > static void disable_animation()
>> > > {
>> > >     GSettings *desktop_settings =
>> > > g_settings_new("org.gnome.desktop.interface");
>> > >     g_settings_set_boolean(desktop_settings, "enable-animations", FALSE);
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > static void disable_wallpaper()
>> > > {
>> > >     GSettings *desktop_settings =
>> > > g_settings_new("org.gnome.desktop.background");
>> > >     g_settings_set_boolean(desktop_settings, "draw-background", FALSE);
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > But looks like this isn't enough. This implementation of
>> > > disable_wallpaper
>> > > actually freezes current background, it is still displayed just isn't
>> > > scaled
>> > > properly when e.g. resolution changes. I'd love some input from anyone
>> > > with
>> > > Gnome3 knowledge... What's expected behavior for Spice client in this
>> > > case?
>> >
>> > I think it is to have a solid background.
>>
>> I see. Turns out this is not that easy to implement with Gnome3
>> settings, but looks like I've got somewhat acceptable behavior today.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > Disable_animations seems to not changing things much - at least I still
>> > > see
>> > > some animations when opening menu or pressing Action button (top left
>> > > corner).
>> >
>> > That doesn't surprise me. If you think that some shell animations are
>> > superflous, you may want to open a bug to GNOME.
>>
>> Sarcasm?) Personally I find Gnome3 not practically useful, at least
>> 3.6 in Fedora 18... But let's not dive into this holywar :)
>
> No no, I usually find GNOME3 animations quite pleasant or useful.
>
> I mean that in some constrained/remote environment, we may want to disable more animations in gnome-shell etc.
>
>> > Perhaps, although in general, you use your VM either over WAN or
>> > local, but not so much switching between the two all the time. And if
>> > it is the case, there are chances you prefer to have the same look and
>> > feel for both cases, so not doing any changes is probably ok.
>>
>> I think that if we implement such intrusive behavior (changing
>> look&feel of DE), we should provide a user with similar means to
>> revert that...
>
> Perhaps it should be reverted for some users or use case. The use case I have in mind (mostly remote usage, and work environment), I believe it is not so important. ymmv
>
>> > Imho, you could win much more performance gains by getting back to
>> > "means to detect local only" and tuning spice settings itself
>> > (disabling image compression etc), not tweaking the desktop settings,
>> > but hey, do what you want! :)
>>
>> Agree. I just don't feel too confident to dive in the internals now.
>> I'm trying to address Bug62033, but looks like Gnome/Boxes guys aren't
>> very interested in the solution now. It was their request for means to
>> detect 'spice local or remote' - that's why I started with DBus way in
>> the first place...
>
>
> bgo #62033? not gnome-boxes (btw, the are some people behinds Boxes here :-)



-- 
Best regards,
Fedor