Re: Evolution 2.0 and GNOME 2.6

> >Anyway, GNOME doesn't add modules based on trying to tick off marketing
> points.
> Maybe it should.

I think it is worst to include module that don't work well because it
gives a wrong view on what they really are.
An example is nautilus. It took a lot of time to show people that they
could use it. They keeped in mind that it was a sloooow thing and
remembered it long.
Another example is an OS whose editor claims to be safe at every new
version and is still easily infected by viruses.
I really don't want such things to happen again (or ever) in Gnome.
If one wants to do marketing, there's enough to do with usability (which
is a major step toward the user) and other features.

> >So far, that's worked pretty well,..
> Maybe with some marketing and strategy along the way could do EVEN better.

and maybe it could be MUCH worst.
You're asking gnome to change the way it works by just saying 2 magic
words "marketing" and "strategy". Unless there's no clearer statement of
what and how it could be better I'm not convinced a change should be

> Why write off the strategic implications of an under-featured Gnome release
> just because it was "good enough" in the past? Why not try to maximize the
> results?

I'm not seing a delay in evolution inclusion as an under featured gnome
release, especialy since it is in order to be respectfull of a high
level of quality and usabilty.
Did you also think about the marketing and strategic implications of
releasing a Gnome version with usability as key feature and the killer
application added just ignoring those rules ?

> Bad points: Gnome loses the "battle" with KDE 3.2, because of the time it
> took it to get released. Users might get frustrated.

The battle point of view may be common among kde and gnome users but
imho isn't among the developers. Both project have now reached a level
near enough to keep their user base satisfied.
I must confess that it's been ages since I didn't looked at kde but I'm
pretty sure that choices between kde and gnome will not rely on just
evolution being in gnome 2.6 !!!

> Personally, I would go with solution #2 (I understand that #3 is out of the
> question), but I would definately not leave the situation as is because as a
> user who have tried 2.5.3, I find the 2.6 under-featured, comparatively to
> 2.4 and the upcoming KDE release (yes, it is a race in my opinion, user
> market share has implications in the way the project functions and evolves).

As for the user market share, it's someting corporate are more about to
Some have shown interest in Gnome for its potential. If they though
about that race, I'm pretty sure they would have put enough resources to
push evolution in gnome 2.6
However, most of us don't see kde/gnome challenges as a race. The
projects both have their own history, technologies and people. As for
the features, they are often exchanged.
Finally, there's no sense in bouncing the version number just to reach
say Gnome 3.2
Gnome has been scheduled to include a couple of features. If other ran
short of time for that release, I'll tend to think that they were some
value added features but not the key ones.
I agree evolution is a killer application so having it in 2.6 would have
been cool but we'll wait gnome 2.8 with knowing it'll get a new

To end this I'de like to conclude that programers and translators
already make a good job with the given resources. I'm pretty sure
evolution team made its possible to be ready with this gnome version. I
respect a lot their decision because implied poeple may have hard time
to take it.

Xavier Ordoquy.


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