Re: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product

We're still a fairly small company operating on tight margins.

That's a problem I'm attempting to address by suggesting bringing back a
modern but conservative and business friendly GNOME 2.

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:40 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
(Red Hat does not make over a billion dollars a year. The billion
dollars was profits, not revenue. We're still a fairly small company
operating on tight margins)

I agree that the "clumsy bag of parts" model is not a good one. That's
why we changed it for GNOME3, in that we're trying to build and ship
an integrated, tested OS instead of a bunch of tarballs.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl gmail com>
        It's 2014 and not 1999.
        That clumsy bag of parts is the reason why the Linux desktop
        We're in a brave new Linux world where Red Hat now makes over
        a billion
        dollars a year, powers the New York Stock Exchange and Google
        has two
        Linux products Chrome OS and Android. Requirements have
        changed and we
        have Wayland and systemd now as guiding examples of the way
        Linux projects that fail to consolidate their efforts and
        collaborate in
        an organized way are now obstacles to progress slowing
        everyone down.
        GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or
        they risk
        becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community.
        On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
        > Traditionally, GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that
        > distributors would rearrange into whatever they wanted, and
        we were
        > happy with this. You'd take a dash of gnome-panel, mix it
        > metacity or sawfish or i3wm, and then slap on some nautilus
        > gnome-commander.
        > That's not how we can build a well-integrated, compelling
        OS. Mixing
        > and matching components means that it's hard to test, and
        hard to
        > define: all GNOME 2 was just some tarballs and some code.
        > Projects like Cinnamon and MATE are happy to use our code
        (it's free
        > software, after all), along with our infrastructure for
        building their
        > own OS, so they don't have to re-translate the same strings
        and keep
        > track of the same bugs, but those teams are focusing on
        building their
        > own OS, not GNOME.
        > The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's
        trying to
        > become its own well-defined product: The number-one free
        > operating system.
        > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Alexander GS
        <alxgrtnstrngl gmail com>
        > wrote:
        >         On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +0000, Allan Day wrote:
        >         > Hi Alex,
        >         >
        >         > Thanks for reaching out with your ideas. I'm
        afraid that
        >         you're
        >         > catching us at a bad time - we are really close to
        UI freeze
        >         and a lot
        >         > of us are working flat out on that. I personally
        don't have
        >         much time
        >         > to spare on mailing lists right now. :)
        >         >
        >         > Can you explain what the GNOME 2 sub-project would
        >         look like?
        >         > It's hard to respond without knowing details about
        how it
        >         would
        >         > actually work. I understand that you are proposing
        >         utilise some
        >         > GNOME 3 modules, but how would it differ? Would it
        have a
        >         3.x
        >         > gnome-control-center? Would it have a shell? If
        not, which
        >         pieces
        >         > would you use instead? Would you expect the GNOME
        project to
        >         make
        >         > regular GNOME 2 releases alongside GNOME ones?
        Would we work
        >         to ensure
        >         > we produce quality GNOME 2 releases as well as
        GNOME 3
        >         releases? How
        >         > would we market these two experiences? What would
        >         recommend to
        >         > distributions?
        >         >
        >         > Thanks,
        >         >
        >         > Allan
        >         After some deep reflection and considerations I
        finally got
        >         the root of
        >         my frustration with the GNOME project.  In reality I
        >         have anything
        >         against GNOME 3.  It's that GNOME has been slow to
        adapt to
        >         the changes
        >         in the GNOME ecosystem.  The central problem is the
        idea of
        >         having a
        >         single dedicated desktop product.
        >         That's why I propose the GNOME Meta-Desktop. Posted
        below is
        >         the Problem
        >         statement of this proposal as a preview.  I've
        posted the full
        >         proposal
        >         to the so you can comment on points
        >         -----------------------
        >         GNOME Meta-Desktop
        >         Problem
        >         For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond
        the idea of
        >         the
        >         "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where
        >         platform is
        >         bolted down to a single desktop interface design.
        >         Unfortunately projects
        >         like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on
        a single
        >         dedicated
        >         desktop interface design has caused the Linux
        desktop space to
        >         fragment
        >         causing divisions and frictions between the various
        >         communities. This
        >         has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the
        ability to
        >         shape
        >         desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by
        their target
        >         markets.
        >         Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a
        >         meta-desktop with
        >         GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs
        of this
        >         evolution.
        >         This brings along with it several problems such as
        >         fragmentation and
        >         redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be
        >         needs
        >         community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house
        >         products to
        >         drive it forward.
        >         ------------------------
        >         Thank you for your time and attention.
        >         _______________________________________________
        >         desktop-devel-list mailing list
        >         desktop-devel-list gnome org
        > --
        >   Jasper
        desktop-devel-list mailing list
        desktop-devel-list gnome org


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