On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 14:49 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ken VanDine <kvandine gnome org> wrote: > > Sorry, not trying to sound harsh here but I couldn't find a better way > > to say this. > > > > Basically you are saying that GOA isn't really an open technology to > > help consolidate user's online accounts, it is only to help consolidate > > accounts for blessed GNOME apps? This doesn't really help users in the > > big picture, but I guess the design team makes those decisions. > > > > Does this mean third party developers shouldn't try to leverage GNOME as > > a platform anymore? Maybe that is a topic for another thread, as much > > as I love GNOME, it is becoming harder and harder to develop for. I > > miss the days when GNOME was a platform, I hope there is a way we can > > change that and turn it into a platform again! > > I think your mail is actually pretty offensive and also > misrepresenting GNOME. I will not reply to it. Huh, I think you pretty much answered Ken's question indirectly. :-) IMHO, the problem with GOA is its lack of extensibility. So adding something like a corporate account type is difficult if not impossible. For instance, if was foo corp, and we had internal mail, jabber and status.net services -- I'd like to provide one way to provide this configuration and have one place for users to set up their accounts. I think handling this use case could provide some guidance for where GOA could go in making users who are corporate environments lives easier. --Ted
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part