Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]


On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
<sergey udaltsov gmail com> wrote:
> My whole point was that in the ideal world GNOME could be extensible
> enough so that no _forking_ would be necessary. Extension modules, not
> patches. That would be not a side effect of the license but the
> fundamental feature of the architecture. Do you see the difference?

Yes. I also think we tried that with GNOME 2 and failed. I mean, look
at GNOME 2's control center - on all distros, it's a royal mess of
random crap from either GNOME, the distro or 3rd party app written by
a kid in a basement. With GNOME 3.2, we will have a simpler control
center (since the extension mechanism is going away) but it will be

Sure, the GNOME 3.x control center doesn't do all you need yet but the
point really is that we're engaging the current providers of control
center items to _work_ with GNOME. In particular, it means working
with designers. And in some cases (e.g. boot loader) the solution is
sometimes to not have a control center item... but maybe put the
feature in the "system restart" dialog instead. The other bonus thing
is that GNOME will _include_ the feature instead of each and every
distro doing their own thing. So in the long run everybody wins [1].

Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
Especially in young evolving software such as e.g. GNOME 3.x. Don't
succumb to it. Just say no.


[1] : Except of course if some downstreams do development in their own
fucking sandbox.. no, this is not a cheap jab at Canonical.. it
includes e.g. Red Hat too. Or SUSE. Trust me when I say that the RH
desktop team and the RH team doing the system-config-* tools have
fought _a lot_ about these issues.

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