Re: Some thoughts on the structure of Gnome

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 13:57, Steven Van Impe wrote:

> 1) Make Gnome a small desktop suite. Include the infrastructure
> (libraries) needed for applications (with full bindings to popular
> languagues), and only the actual "desktop" applications (stuff like
> nautilus, the panel, configuration etc). Call this the "Platform",
> nicely polish and integrate it, and when it's done, try to distribute it

Um, GNOME is already broken up this way... There is the Platform, which
are just the core development bits.  Then there is the Desktop, which
are the applications built on the Platform that are essential for pretty
much all users to use a computer; i.e., things like the file manager,
panels, browser, etc.

That is where most of the discussions about what to include happen. 
i.e., do modern users expect a music player to be a part of their
desktop, or is it an optional component only used by a fraction of
desktop users?

> in less packages than is the case now. Doing this would make it easy for
> people to get an easy overlook of what is the Gnome Desktop, and would
> make it easier for newbie developers to understand how Gnome works,
> which, in the long term, would get more people working on Gnome (atleast
> I think it would) not only coding but also artwork (for example).

How things are packaged have absolutely nothing to do with understanding
GNOME.  Packaging is just how parts are delivered to end users.  Most
end users don't use GNOME's direct source packages but instead use
distros' specialized packages which may or may not even reflect the
structure of GNOME's upstream packaging.

Developers don't need to know really what tarball code is included in. 
They do need to know how to use the Platform to develop applications. 
Better documentation will help there.

> 
> 2) Create something like a Gnome certificate for "official" Gnome
> programs. Some time ago I saw a post on Planet Gnome where someone wrote
> a list of what technologies Gnome programs should use in order to nicely
> fit into the desktop. Using a certificate you could force these
> applications to make full use of the Gnome desktop, work nicely with
> other certified Gnome programs and have a consistent look-and-feel. I
> don't think this should be too hard since most big Gnome programs seem
> to have core Gnome people working on it already.

That would get ugly.  You'd need to legally enforce usage of the
certificate in order for it to have any real meaning.  Otherwise people
will start using it for all their apps just to make it more appealing to
users even if it completely fails to integrate with the GNOME desktop at
all.

Any application that is incldued in the core GNOME desktop would already
have this seal (the requirements for being in the Desktop are pretty
close to what you'd want to put on this seal), and applications outside
the desktop are very problematic.  Each and every release of the
application would need to be recertified since even a minor point
release might include HIG-incompliant UI, broken translations, bugs
hindering proper use of Platform technologies, and so on.

> 
> My opinion is that the above method would eliminate the need for
> discussions about what goes in and what not (sooner or later, you'll
> either end with a HUGE bundle of software or never reach a consensus)

No, the discussions will turn into "Is this application Approved or
not."  And then there will still be a "does this actually belong in
Desktop or should it remain a separate third-party application?"

> and allow Gnome to be used as a fully functional desktop suite (without
> making it a mammoth) while still leaving some options for people to
> choose their favorite software.

Everyone always has this option.  Epiphany is included in the Desktop
release yet mainstream distros either don't package Epiphany at all or
include it as optional software that is not installed by default.  The
Desktop release has pretty much zero impact on real users (which is
another reason for the arguing about what's included in Desktop and what
isn't) because users don't get their software from GNOME, they get it
from a pre-packaged binary distributor, whom are free to modify the
GNOME package set and sources however they so wish.  If you don't like
Nautilus, install Velocity or something else.  Don't like Metacity? 
Replace it.  Rather use Firefox instead of Epiphany?  Go ahead. 
Evolution/Totem/Rhythmbox not your style?  Nobody's shoving them down
your throat.

The Desktop release is both a list of "recommened" software and a list
of packages which are GNOME-integrated and ready.  It's advisory at
best.

> 
> 
> King regards,
> 
> Steven Van Impe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.