Re: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product

[Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl gmail com>]

We can agree to disagree on this point.  I also want to say that I mean
no offense.  GNOME 3 is an excellent project.  Really, I can appreciate
how much energy and passion you and the team have put into it.  But I
just want to clarify that my comments and Proposal in no way shape or
form maligns or put's down GNOME 3 or the hard work you've put into it.

My primary concern isn't GNOME 3. It's the lack of a commercially viable
GNOME 2 based desktop product.  It's also the fragmentation of the GNOME
desktop and migration to alternatives like KDE or XFCE. These two
factors indicate that GNOME is not in a healthy situation and is
beginning to decline in relevance.  That's all.  

The GNOME 2 and community issues are issues that need to be addressed.

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 20:17 +0000, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> 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.