Re: Boxes and 3.4

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak gnome org>]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Andrew Cowie
<andrew operationaldynamics com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:15 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote:
>
>> And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured
>> application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan?
>
> Because there's a big difference between an integrated, designed,
> polished, documented and translated GNOME app and something that happens
> to use GTK, right?
>
> Just because it isn't targeted at core audience doesn't mean that it
> shouldn't be an awesome part of GNOME if you happen to be in an
> alternate space. You know, like IT professionals?
>
> We're getting *ransacked* out there in discussions in LUGs around the
> world (e.g. [1]) because power users are trying GNOME 3 have found it
> totally interferes with their accustomed workflows. Unhappy campers. If
> people in LUGs have the idea that GNOME 3 is no use for them, do you
> really think they're going to push for its adoption in the wider company
> that they have to support?
>
> So the whole discussion about whether Boxes is core or not is
> ridiculous. If it meets the standards of being a good GNOME app (HIG, oh
> HIG, where art thou HIG) then it should be endorsed and promoted.
> Period.

While I greatly appreciate your support for Boxes here, I must inform
you that Boxes is *not* targeted for IT professionals. For that we
have virt-manager and oVirt.

Regarding the rationale of Boxes as a core app, I think we definitely
need something to nicely handle insertion of an OS installer or live
media. The best thing to do in that scenerio is the creation and
launch of a VM (box) and Boxes already does that for you. Without
Boxes as part of every GNOME installation, we won't have this working
out of the box and bore the users by showing them files on the media.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124