Re: My thoughts on fallback mode

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 01:10 +0100, Mario Blättermann wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 04.01.2011, 00:41 +0100 schrieb Christopher Roy
> Bratusek: 
> > > What about to have a gnome-shell with a fallback
> > > mode which works (with function constraints) with the good old metacity
> > > or other window managers? 
> > 
> > *that* would be a kick-ass to step back from "We force you to use Mutter, when 
> > you're going to use GNOME-Shell" attitude. I've been following the discussions 
> > from users point of view and lots (and I mean it) have complained about having 
> > to use Mutter in favour of their current WM.
> > 
> I agree with you. In the last years, I've learned to appreciate GNOME
> because of its modularity, which doesn't preclude integrity. Nowadays it
> is still possible to drive a system with Openbox instead of Metacity and
> without Nautilus at all.

this is what we don't want any more.

this modularity, and the fact that you can voltronize anything and still
call it "GNOME" is a maintainership hurdle and it stop a coherent vision
of GNOME as an operating system.

>  In fact, GNOME is built on top of a basic
> gnome-session. If it switches completely to mutter/gnome-shell or any
> other thing which forces the user to use that and nothing else, we end
> up in a desktop which is as strong bolted as Windows or MacOSX and get a
> considerable part of the "freedom of choice" lost.

GNOME is not about "choice"; it is about freedom, but the two are not

> If this ever really happens, I will turn away from GNOME, I'm sure.

this is part of the freedoms GNOME allows.



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