Re: more gnome 2 proposal

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

George <jirka 5z com> writes:
> 
> I still do not see how this all makes libgnomeui as a separate module
> completely irrelevant.  Just like you should not replace GTK+ with
> components, so you shouldn't do it with a desktop integration library.  Yes,
> gnome-libs has before had some things that would be better off as components,
> but there are many things which don't.  We still need a desktop integration
> library for desktop integration widgets and functions.  Components are very
> cool, but do not replace everything.

Well, I think they do replace most things, with the issue that our
current ORBit1/GObject based components are a bit too heavy (both in
terms of time involved to write one, and runtime overhead) for the
kind of widespread use one might like. I think this is a known problem
the Bonobo guys are interested in solving.

Componentizing GTK is a blue sky plan that we'd like to see happen
eventually. But it has to be done carefully, and certainly isn't a
GNOME 2 kind of task.
 
> I still also feel that there will be a place for libgnome/libgnomeui even
> after bonobization is done.  However small this library may be.

Well, we need the C APIs for backward compat if nothing else.

> So if we are already talking what my "plan" or "vision" for GNOME is.  Let me
> state mine:  GNOME needs to be a good and easy to use desktop environment.
> It needs to be a free software environment.  It needs to make it possible for
> average users to have access to computers.  Nowhere in there is any mention
> of what technology this is achieved by.  If we can do this without the best 
> use of components, then so be it.  We should not get attached to any
> technology just because "it sounds cool".  We should always ask what will
> this mean for your regular user.  One of the biggest considerations we need
> to look at is time.  A great technology in 10 years is completely useless
> now.  Users cannot use cool technology if it's not released.  We need to be
> pragmatic and we need to focus on getting a free software environment that is
> good enough to users in a timely fashion.  We need to get free software on
> the desktop NOW.
> 

I agree with this. Well, I think there's a room for both things.

We need to work on a component platform, and a desktop.

I don't think they should be tied together when we can help
it. i.e. the goal for a desktop release should not be "use libraries
X, Y, Z." Some apps seem to be written with a checklist of libraries,
and the app is finished once you have used every library possible. ;-)
This is pretty silly.  App should be written with a checklist of
end-user features.

I would like to see better separation between the platform and desktop
organizationally and technically; with the desktop authors being users
of the platform product, and using it when it's stable not before.

The unfortunate problem with GNOME 2 is that two key end user features
(i18n and accessibility) are tied to upgrading the platform to GTK 2,
which gives us more bundling than we'd like.

Havoc