Re: Question for Bastian Nocera

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 20:36 +0200, Javier Jardón wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> in your application you say:
> 
> > - (Re-)defining GNOME:
> > The Foundation charter defines GNOME as a loose collection of
> > independent project, though we need to stop considering it as such if
> > GNOME is to take an important role in the future of computing, be it on
> > the desktop, or in devices, where it would provide the infrastructure.
> 
> Could you elaborate a bit more about this?

Look at the upper and lower bounds on this diagram for GNOME Mobile:
http://www.gnome.org/mobile/gmae-arch-diag.png

Where does GNOME start and stop?

Do we go from the kernel up? From the user-space bits up? Is something
still GNOME when it doesn't use GTK+? When it doesn't use Matchbox (as
per the diagram), or metacity/mutter?

I would think it being fine to say, GNOME is:
- Linux kernel
- D-Bus
- NetworkManager/BlueZ/PolicyKit/udisks/upower
- X11
all the way to GTK+/Clutter combination and apps

And this is what we need to focus on. There's a lot of swamp-draining to
be done in the lower levels, and working on GNOME means working on one
of those things in the stack.

In the same way, I think it doesn't shut out other OSes, be they other
free Unices, or even Mac OS X and Windows, where the stack is just
shifted (pretty much everything underneath what we currently consider
the GNOME stack).

Defining the GNOME OS is required if we want to avoid getting cornered
working on the bits at the top of the stack, and working around
problems, rather than solving the solutions "The Right Way" all the way
down our stack.

Obviously, this would require discussions...

Cheers