Re: My thoughts on fallback mode

Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 10:54 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek a
écrit : 
> 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

I agree with you Chris. The non-modularity of GnomeShell and the
non-mind-open of her dev team is problematic. 

I tried to give my opinion about Gnome Shell on its mailing list and I
was ignored. I tried the IRC chat and I was insulted (some people say
that I'm contitioning, unable to think by myself). This is intolerable
in a community project. 

Gnome-Shell have some seriuus problems:
- No final line defined. Where it go? When will it considered as
sufficiently complete for the final release? What exactly waiting we at
Gnome 3? We have the impression that the dev team progresses in the
- Gnome Shell are no modular. It's need to separate the Shell from the
window manager. Each window have to be managed by the window manager and
Shell menu and panels by the Shell. With actually Gnome Shell, the
non-modularity imposes the Shell with the Window manager and vice versa.
- The dev team of Gnome Shell are so closed. I think the last
possibility that remains is the fork.

Why don't make many Shell? It's too early for the Gnome Shell. 
I think it's better If we have a Gnome Shell based on Gnome Panels, but
with somes new features and design comes from Gnome Shell, and a Gnome
Shell Lab like the actually Gnome Shell, for test all concepts thath the
dev team want. But the Shell have to be separate from the Window

With this solution all people be happy and have the choice, but with the
actually solution only the dev team of Gnome Shell and many fans are
happy. Other people are forced.

So, I have a message for the dev team of Gnome Shell:
You are not alone in this community.

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