Re: Quo vadis, GNOME? (was: Getting Bugzilla support into Bug-buddy)

[mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus)]

[schnibble]

I hereby post my reply to Aaron's original mail, which differs in
wording from the version that he posted to the list.

+++ Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:26:32PM -0500 +++
Aaron Weber e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> In the same way that the Linux kernel is no longer the major focus
> of
> linux development, gnome-core is no longer the only focus of
> GNOME development. All along, GNOME strove to become a desktop and
> a platform for development-- that's why the libraries were written
> for
> accessibility to non-C languages, that's why the libraries were
> LGPLed.

Yeah. No problem with that. However, GNOME should keep striving to
innovate core concepts as well as extending the platform and
application support. And that means working on GNOME. Not the Eazel
desktop, not Ximian GNOME: GNOME pure and simple.

> Now that GNOME has begun to attract more and more developers, more
> and
> more projects, it is only natural that there will be some dilution,
> some reorganizational friction... in the same way that when the
> world
> discovers your favorite band, it's sad to see the close-knit
> scene grow beyond your taste and beyond its foundations,
>  but it's beautiful to know you were here from the beginning, that
> you were on to something earlier than the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong. That's not my kind of spirit. I've never been an
ivory-tower kind of person, and I strongly dislike that kind of
fandom.

> Now that the world is waking up to GNOME, you must acknowledge that
> people will want to use it in ways that you might not approve of.
> you must
> acknowledge that it will change, and that you might not always
> be in charge of that change. Ximian and Eazel and Sun and HP are
> all going to be contributing to GNOME now, and that's a
> good thing. don't resist growth just because it's got a brand and a
> corporation behind it.
>
> If you truly disagree with the direction of growth, then by all
> means
>  do so; the beauty of free software is that it
>  lets people disagree productively. But don't say that Ximian GNOME
>  isn't
> GNOME because it's commercial: Ximian abides by the GPL,
> and everyone here loves and respects the free software community.
> Most of us came from that community, and none of us would be here
> without it.

That's all fine and dandy. In my opinion, the problem is not
commercial interest. The problem is that what is perceived as the
GNOME product is breaking into pieces because of that commercial
interest. And however good the intentions of all the participating
companies are: their interests do and will conflict with the interest
of the GNOME community.

Witness the services built into Evolution and Nautilus. It would be
the best interest of the GNOME community to have *one* GNOME Update
Service, whatever the name, or at least don't have the functionality
of Eazel Services and Red Carpet overlap. But it's not in the interest
of Eazel or Ximian, apparently. Eazel and Ximian are competitors, and
thus it would be stupid if one of them ceded any area where their
client can deliver any services to the other.

Result? Two different service platforms for GNOME delivering the same
functionality.

This is what I mean. And this will get only worse since I can't
believe Sun will not want to deploy some kind of service platform in
the GNOMEified StarOffice a/k/a OpenOffice.

> And besides, a branded distribution of patched Linux packages with
> new artwork with free clients for corporate fee based services is
> still a Linux distribution, isn't it?  I mean, I don't hear Linus
> demanding that Red Hat quit using his trademark on the kernel name.

That's a very fruity-sounding argument. Actually that's because you're
comparing apples and oranges, in a way ;) Linux is just a kernel,
everything based upon that kernel is Linux. No discussion here. GNOME,
however, is something with a certain style, a look and feel. Shipping
GNOME with different icons and a different splash screen alone is
already harmful IMHO, since that is what makes people recognise a
system as being GNOME.

As for shipping clients for pay services such as Eazel Services or Red
Carpet, I think the problem's not that they're commercial. The problem
ist that this ties the non-commercial GNOME project to some companies
more than others, and it hurts the unity of GNOME as a product.

mawa
-- 
WEITER SO