Re: Fallback / Classic Mode

[Dave Neary <dneary gnome org>]

Hi,

Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> What does the Board have to do with the Marketing Team? Allan and
> Sumana, as members of the Marketing Team, are certainly good decision
> makers but the Board should not be doing any top-down management and I
> certainly hope that the Board is not putting Allan and Sumana in the
> difficult position of having to choose between what they know is the
> right thing to do and what their contract provider is asking that they
> do. I think that they are both qualified enough to stand on their own
> without being micromanaged. Further, I hope that any such discussions
> are transparent and exclusively on this mailing list.

It appears you're happy telling people what to concentrate on, all I'm
saying is that I'm not. But I bet that this will be an issue, and it's
one we can handle easily with a tiny bit of foresight.

> > The whole "fall-back" messaging & in particular the absence of a short
> > list of places where this is known not to be appropriate seems to me to
> > be setting us up for an entirely avoidable post-release shit-storm...
> > but like I said, it's not my call.
>
> What do you mean, "Not to be appropriate?"

GNOME 3 is not appropriate, apparently, over VNC, and over thin clients
(at least, this is what I've taken away from this thread). So we need to
say "GNOME 3 won't work well in <these situations>, and since the GNOME
3 fall-back is not a full-featured GNOME desktop, you might want to
stick with GNOME 2.32 if you're in this situation."


> Fallback will work
> everywhere that GNOME 2.x has worked and any sysadmin crazy enough to
> deploy an enterprise desktop roll-out of a non-Enterprise distribution
> already has the tools they need to force Fallback Mode if they are so
> inclined. I don't see why it's even remotely relevant to the release
> of 3.0.

Do you think no-one will bring this up?

Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dneary gnome org