Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
- From: Martin Pitt <martin pitt ubuntu com>
- To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:27:32 +0200
Sergey Udaltsov [2011-05-12 20:45 +0100]:
> Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
> patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
> closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
> about free software). Also, that is a very effective way to alienate
> 3rd parties (app developers, distromakers). I suspect, that attitude
> in gnome possibly affected Canonical decision to drop gnome 3.
Not at all. C/U did not "drop" GNOME 3, the reason why the current
release does not have it was a timing/planning/manpower issue. GNOME
3 is landing in the development release as we speak. Please let's not
make this appear as a "we don't want to play with your toys any more"
kind of argument. :-) This would not only be totally stupid from our
side, but we would also just shoot ourselves in the foot with that.
Aside from that the technical issue remains that this does make it
harder to customize c-c to a downstream's needs, of course. It's
really good that the individual changes are being discussed here
(deja-dup, etc.), and perhaps for the case of Ubuntu One we can even
find some better solution than "totally Ubuntu specific", but I'm
afraid it is a fact that we will always have a need to do some
customization (like adding our "Additional Drivers", or at least brand
Ubuntu One as such, etc.). We'll get along either way, I just think
it is important for GNOME to understand that closing APIs like that
won't really stop Ubuntu (or Meego, etc.) from changing it anyway.
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
] [Thread Prev