Re: very rough pre-gep tentative new modules list

<quote who="Glynn Foster">

> > b) To mandate a minimum 'Gnome Desktop'
> > b) A good idea - but if this is the case, we're foisting a massive
> > burden on companies in terms of long term support - a can't just pop
> > stuff in and out. Package addition should be a very well thought out
> > process.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this really isn't an issue at all.
> Companies can just as easily pop stuff in and out as they please - I know
> Sun, for one, has done this - and I'm pretty sure RedHat do this too.

I disagree: The mish-mash of changes in distributor versions of GNOME 1.x
was due to lack of maintenance and direction on the community's side. It's a
pity that some of this has been repeated in Red Hat and Sun's GNOME 2.x
releases, but there are valid reasons for it.

I think it's an important goal for the community to make a lot of these
kinds of decisions (and concessions!) before the distributors have to.
Participating in that process will raise everyone's boats, and hopefully
keep everyone on the same page.

Do we want to see the same kind of fundamental disconnect between the
community and GNOME distributors as KDE [1] has seen with Red Hat?

  [ Sorry if this sounds like pandering to the BigCo's. I've been accused of
  that before. :-) My point is that by understanding the needs of GNOME
  distributors, the community can benefit through visibility, more users
  (and then, perhaps, more paid hackers), and greater quality. There's no
  doubt that contributions from Sun, Ximian, Red Hat and others have made
  GNOME 2.x the slick, sharp and stable release that it is. ]

Ahem. :-)

- Jeff

    "Ever had a morning where you were not kissed and told 'I love you,'    
       when the night before you SCREWED so wildly that you could not       
        remember? GOOD MORNING!!!!" - Andre Hedrick, Linux ATA Dude         

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]