Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3

["Luis Villa" <luis tieguy org>]

Or to put this in a tighter nutshell:

<firefox_developer> we're going to rule (again) on mobile with a firefox product
<firefox_developer> because we're all user-focused
<luis>  that was really my core critique of the GNOME 3.0 proposal
<luis>  it is '3.0 because gtk is 3.0' rather than '3.0 because of
these kick-ass user features'
<firefox_developer> a 3.0 that no one cares about
<firefox_developer> ff 3 was called ff 3 because people can _tell_
it's a damn upgrade

So, yeah. When we've figured out how to make people tell it's a damn
upgrade, get back to me, until then, calling it 3.0 is a bad idea.

Sorry again for the stop energy, but when I see things plunging off a
cliff, and a huge opportunity wasted, I think it has to be said...

Luis

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't put the technical justification "API & ABI break" front &
>> center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we
>> want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same
>> lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ.
>>
>> Better to be honest, and say "GNOME evolves, and it's important to
>> signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME
>> 2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like
>> GNOME 2.0" - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+
>> version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Version numbers matter to users, and to the press.
>
> I hate to dump on well-meaning people like those of you on r-t, but
> this 3.0 plan is, hands-down, a terrible idea, on a lot of levels, and
> Dave's points here- why are we focusing on API? what are we signaling
> to users?- begin to highlight why. The fact that the very first
> sentence of http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 is wrong: "GNOME 3 is needed
> as GTK+ 3 will happen." is just not a good sign. (There are ways to
> educate developers about API/ABI change besides major version numbers
> of the desktop, so GTK3 need not force GNOME3.)
>
> In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and
> perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than
> making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I
> think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users,
> developers, and the media. As Blizzard said in his talk, users must
> drive the agenda. Sitting back and saying 'we're just the platform' is
> a recipe to become less relevant, not more relevant. I realize it is
> frustrating to sit and wait for news user-focused agendas to
> materialize, and I applaud the idea of driving longer-term planning
> which might help drive creation of these agendas. But trying to force
> it by arbitrarily letting an API/ABI change (which users know nothing
> about and care nothing about) set an arbitrary date which may or may
> not have any good ideas is a bad idea.
>
> In more detail:
>
> First, from a user perspective: how am I supposed to understand what
> kind of change has gone on here? The change in major number is
> supposed to indicate radical change. That is what version numbers do.
> It is fair to say that GNOME 2.0 is very different from GNOME 3.0, but
> (1) users aren't going to come to it from GNOME 2.0 unless they've
> been living under a rock- they'll be coming to it from GNOME 2.2x, and
> they'll wonder what the big deal is and (2) at core the user
> experience is the same- same menus, same file manager. Users will
> expect major change and improvement from a GNOME 3.0, and they'll be
> confused and disappointed. With good reason. And never a good idea to
> confuse and disappoint users. (The counter-argument, that we need to
> go to 3.0 in order to show users that there has been change, is
> broken. *Features* are what show users that there has been change. If
> they haven't noticed the new features when we went from
> 2.0->2.2->...->2.28, why are they suddenly now going to notice these
> features now? Because we slapped a new number on them? Seriously?)
>
> Second, from a developer perspective: I understand the need to
> indicate to developers that an API/ABI change has occurred, but if we
> need to, that is why we have a platform/desktop split- change the
> version number in the platform. Changing the desktop version without a
> clear vision/agenda, *especially* combined with new API/ABI + porting,
> is an invitation to architecture astronautics and unnecessary churn.
> You're just begging for more tabs- hey, there is a new tab API! ;) 2.0
> almost failed for this exact reason- before there was a clear vision
> about doing usability/simplicity-centered design, the new version
> number was a huge invitation to insert $VISION here, leading to all
> kinds of crack. (This, IMHO, was KDE4's problem- no user-focused
> vision, just technology churn.) A good 3.0 could be just the opposite-
> find a vision, evangelize it, and say 'here is the deadline', and all
> kinds of good stuff will happen. Instead it looks like the plan is to
> squander that opportunity; if anything, by stepping away from apps and
> letting a free-for-all happen there, it basically sounds like we're
> abandoning user-focused developer vision altogether.
>
> Finally, from a media perspective: the reason GNOME 2.0 was a success
> in the Linux media, and the reason KDE 4.0 has been a failure, is that
> GNOME 2.0 had a clear, persuasive story around it: simplification and
> usability. No one in the media cared that we had a new toolkit, except
> where it had specific features (mainly i18n) that had user benefits.
> Writers ate up our usability story- they could tell their readers the
> story we put out there, and it made sense to them. KDE 4 has no
> coherent user-focused story, so this incredible opportunity to reach
> out to the press has been squandered. Instead of the good press we got
> around 2.0, they've got stories like 'is kde 4 a failure'. We had
> unhappy users around 2.0, just like they did around 4.0, but the media
> bought our spin on it- 'something you have to break some eggs to make
> an omelette'- because the media understand our clear story around what
> the omelette was. KDE has no idea what their omelette is, so the
> broken eggs are getting all the press. Vista and OSX are, to a certain
> extent, the same- OSX has incremental changes and incremental version
> number changes. The media understands this, and so is willing to let
> slide that there has been no major, revolutionary change at apple for
> 4-5 years now. OSX of 2008 is certainly a much improved experience
> from X.0, just like 2.0 is different from 2.24 (though note that
> they've repeatedly broken API without changing the 10 major version
> #), but Apple has had the good sense not to raise media/user
> expectations until there really is a radical change. Vista was
> essentially a major version number change for minor, incremental
> software changes, and Vista got *destroyed* in the press.
>
> I'm sorry to be so negative, but this is a lousy idea and I think that
> needs to be said. Do not repeat the mistakes of early 2.0 (before we
> got our act together) and KDE 4.0. Be patient; just because Topaz is
> unlikely to happen (I agree) is no reason to rush out and slap 3.0 on
> something.
>
> Luis
>