Re: Some points about IM integration

> I've heard enough of this and feel great disrespect.
Please Marguerite, let's not get personal (or even national) on this
thread. You should know better than occusing people who sincerelly
want GNOME to provide the best - and do not mean any nationalism or

But really there is another side to it. The worst thing that happened
to GNOME3 comparing to GNOME2 is that for nearly every aspect GNOME3
is trying to find THE solution (for the valid reason of polished UX) -
and without specifying managed interfaces, all other solutions just
have zero chance to compete (so THE solution immediately becomes THE
ONLY POSSIBLE solution). I am really excited to see that this approach
demonstrates its fundamental weakness in case of IMs - that gives
another chance to everyone to think about general GNOME strategy, to
start thinking in terms of interfaces, not particular implementations.

I understand that GNOME devs would be happy to choose IBus as the
default solution, since it is most GNOME-oriented and the integration
can be as tight as GNOME high UX standards would require. Quite
possible that is sane. But it was told here that IBus (fundamentally?)
lacks some substantial features that other IM frameworks have - so why
IBus should be the only possible option?

Let's have defaul solution - the best point of compromise between
language support, UX, developers attitude to GNOME etc etc. But let's
not make it the only possible solution.

I hope noone is going to fallback to the worst possible argument "it
is FOSS, you can always patch it" - I would consider it as some kind
of Godwin law for FOSS architectures.


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