Re: Fw: Incessant Horse Flogging.

["Bowie J. Poag" <bpoag comcast net>]

> There were many unproven things that went around in the Gnome system and
> now they are old and boring (applets for instance).

Not new. NeXT had these as far back as 1988, IIRC. I also remember seeing
them in AmigaDOS in ye olden days, although not incorporated within
Workbench directly.

Even if i'm mistaken, i'm sure you nonetheless see the point i'm trying to
make..GNOME spends far, far too much time attempting to mimic whats already
out there, versus trying to get a leg up on the competition. By constantly
coming up with "knock offs" of other desktops, you are (in effect)
relegating GNOME to 2nd place. Dunno about you, but i'd rather not see GNOME
referred to as the Gallagher II of desktops. :)


> Everything mimics something. It could be nature, a similar system, a
> previous invention, etc.  The electronic desktop mimics the physical
> desktop.

Yes, but occasionally there are leaps in the evolution of those
systems..both in nature, and in manufacturing. Nature tries things out.. A
lizard with feathers, a fly with two sets of wings, frogs with extra
legs.... Some ideas work, some do not. But thats the point -- You have to go
thru 90% of the failures to find the 10% of ideas that actually _do_ work.

By simply accepting whatever is already there, you're admitting to the world
that you can't come up with anything better.  I disagree with that notion. I
disagree so much that i've come up with ideas of my own over the years, and
are looking for a sympathetic ear to listen and consider them. I tried to
share some of them a few years ago, but even then, the level of resistance
to new ideas was pretty high.

Thats why i'm here. I'm hoping after the Christmas release, some people will
be interested in having an "Englebart Day" where people can toss around new
things they've been thinking about, for peer review.

> There is a thing called first mover syndrome.  All I should have to say
> is Xerox Parc and you should get the idea.

I do. Are you saying this is a bad thing, tho?


> Which is why we have to do what they do even better.  Revolutionary
> changes come once in a blue moon.  Evolutionary changes is where the
> real inovation happens.

I'm proposing lizards with feathers.  You're proposing a frog with 3 legs.
Sure, you can argue that "It adds 50% more jumping power!", but that infers
the frog isn't already optimally-designed, with only two legs. Turns out
that nature doesn't prefer 3-legged frogs. Makes it easier to be caught by
snakes, and makes mating more difficult.

Much the same way, you're under the impression that augmenting the Windows
taskbar adds 50% more jumping power, but that infers the taskbar isn't
already optimally-designed...that it needs more legs so to speak. I would
argue that it does not. Evolution is pointless when things are already
(arguably) in their most optimal state.. Frogs and desktops alike.

For example, I would argue that the panel has turned into a swiss army knife
too big to fit in anyones pocket. The point of diminishing returns was
overshot long ago. IMHO, the degree of confusion the panel introduces does
not warrant its current feature set.



> But you want to put the horse in front of the cart.  There can't be a
> better system if it doesn't allow people to migrate from their systems.

Migrate, not catapult. :) I know plenty of people who would like to take a
trip, but I don't know of a single person who wants to be fired out of a
cannon.


> Visions are like the gadgets in Star Trek.  Ya they are cool and I would
> like to own a personal transporter but until someone sits down and
> actualy makes one its just a prop in a film.

But if I gave you the blueprints & schematics for a personal transporter,
you would build it.  Thats what i'm saying. The only way to get there is to
sit down and Civ it out. Yes, it takes time, but the potential payoffs are
as inevitable as they are enormous.


> The thousands of people who have worked on it now and in the past
> > didn't just fall out of the sky in a cosmic accident or stroke of
enormous
> > luck. They showed up here because they believed in a shared vision.
Their
> > work is done _completely_ on the basis of a shared vision.
> And concreate code.

I learned how to code when I was a wee lad because I wanted to participate
in something. Not the other way around. Its the idea that attracts the
programmer's attention in the first place. It flirts with him, draws him in,
and puts him to work.


> No one is realy saying that new features can't be added.  Visions are
> fine but it dilutes focus if all you talk about is visions.  One needs
> to focus their visions into things like the Gnome system and then must
> at some point relegate vision to a smaller timeslice as they work to get
> the original vision to fuition.

Yes, but the timeslices overlap. The instant you exit one development
stretch, you find yourself in the middle of another. It makes it rare if not
impossible to find an empty space in which to introduce a new idea. Quite
literally, i've been waiting patiently for years now. I'm now under the
impression that this development gap will never occur. Infact, it becomes
less and less likely to occur as time goes on, and the project grows larger.


>  That is what the core GNOME developers
> are doing.  They are smart people.  I am sure they have visions all the
> time.  They also have the wisdom to stay on the path and finish what
> they are doing first before moving on to another task.  If you wish for
> something cool try coding it yourself and discuss it with your friends
> first.  Let the idea gain traction instead of bothering developers who
> have little time on their hands.

I have done so on a few of them. I tend to keep them to myself, but i'll
share you the code if you like. Its a big insecurity I have --- the fear
that whatever code I write will be judged to be hideous, and subsequently
discarded on the basis of asthetic beauty alone. :)

Fast girls and fast food aren't pretty. The same tends to be true for fast
code. :)


> GStreamer proved itself not because of its vision but because
> somone decided to take that vision and implement it.  This is a model of
> how it should be done.  Not by complaining there is not enough vision.

Agreed, but can you reasonably expect me to out-write the combined output of
all developers? I'd rather throw whatever meat I have to offer into the
lion's den and see who thinks its tasty. I alone can't produce the idea.
Thats why i'm here looking for a forum to discuss them.

Thanks for your well-thought out reply, John. I was hoping to have just this
sort of discourse..You've given me quite a few things to think about for
today.

Drop me an email personally, and i'll see that you get a copy of what I
mentioned earlier...but please don't share it. Beta is embarassing. :)

Cheers,
Bowie



> --
> J5
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list