Re: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

hi;

On 5 February 2014 20:03, Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl gmail com> wrote:
> It's 2014 and not 1999.

this is pretty much the only thing that you and I agree on. sadly,
from different angles.

> GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk
> becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community.

so your idea, which would reduce fragmentation by reincorporating
other projects, is to go back at doing exactly what we were doing
before?

I hope you can see the cognitive dissonance hidden in this whole
thing, especially the four basic issues that your idea does not take
into consideration.

in short: "let's go back doing what GNOME 2.x did (which does not take
into consideration that doing so proved to be unsustainable to the
point that the people that were doing it decided), and MATE and
Cinnamon will cease to exist (which doesn't take into consideration
the fact that both MATE and Cinnamon *want* to do something of their
own while starting off from the GNOME code base, and that
reintegration at this point would mean abandonment), and at the same
time we can do experimentations (i.e. the current GNOME 3.x) on the
side (which does not take into consideration the fact that the people
that do work on GNOME already decided what to work on years ago)". on
top of this, you're assuming that the Foundation can dictate the
technological direction of the project, or that it can allocate
resources — both assumptions being unfounded in reality.

I'm sorry you don't like the direction of GNOME. this does not mean
you get to decide where the project should go just because you don't
like it.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/