Re: My thoughts on fallback mode

[Christopher Roy Bratusek <zanghar freenet de>]

On Tuesday 04 January 2011 10:22:31 you wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Christopher Roy Bratusek
> 
> <zanghar freenet de> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 January 2011 04:56:32 you wrote:
> >> On 01/03/11 19:33, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote:
> >> > ... above you said GNOME is about freedom, so now you differ between
> >> > *this* and *that* freedom, that's not a very straight-line king to
> >> > argue, if you ask me.
> >> 
> >> You're talking about your denied freedom for you as a user to enslave
> >> the GNOME developers, aren't you?
> > 
> > No, about that no user can see the reason why you are taking *their*
> > freedom (or in your words: you first took our freedom, period). GNOME
> > was always modular, so there's no point in demodularizing it, just
> > because you want the user to be forced to use something.
> 
> Tell you what: I'm not thrilled about Shell either. I don't like some
> of the technology choices, I don't like some of the design concepts.
> But unless you're going to provide code patches, better designs and
> other resources, please stop complaining. It's like standing in the
> middle of the street and yelling "we should all be rich". Saying so
> won't make it happen.

Ever thought, that the attitude of the people above (especially Emanuelles 
arrogant "we allow you to choose another DE, that's the freedom we leave to 
you") might stop possible contributors from doing so?

And: if critics are only allowed when providing patches, something isn't 
right. Unless they don't accept that they are not infaillable, why should they 
accept patches, as it's their mind and their decision that's ultimate, not the 
contributors or (even worser) users?

Emanuelle said GNOME3 won't be modular anymore, so why should anyone bother 
providing patches, *before* they changed their mood? No one will, because 
their statements clearly tell people "we won't accept patches in that 
direction, as the decision we made is already done and ultimate, we don't 
fail, period".

So before doing anything we would first try to open their minds by writing 
mails like we just did, but: they are not open-minded, so I fear we could make 
this discussion endless with no change in any regard.

To bring this discussion to end from my side, my conclusion:

Linus was absolutely right as he called them "control freaks", but with GNOME3 
their freakyness is taken to another dimension, if you ask me. Since they 
argue like what they do is ultimate, no one will waste his/her freetime to 
contribute patches in a direction against those decisions. (Again: I'm *not* 
talking about gnome-applets!) I thought we would be able to wake them up from 
their trance, but we failed... lot's of users already left GNOME and 
especially Compiz-Fans will, as soon  as they recognize:

GNOME3 + Compiz = Fail ... or: GNOME3 + Sawfish = Fail

Why should someone who's hardware is capable of running Plasma (which runs 
just fine without 3D accel and which is equal in 2D and 3D, except animations), 
use an incomplete fallback rather than something more appealing? Unlike GNOME-
Shell Plasms is not limited to KWin. Sooner or later people will recognize 
that and KDE will get "lightyears" in front. We wanted to point that 
missconcept out, but imagine this: someone would listen to a non-gods (^= non-
RT) voice. OMG.

Chris