Re: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product



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.





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