Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:33:08AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> 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'

This was at GUADEC! Of course we focus on gtk+ especially if we are
right after the gtk+ presentation. 

> <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

Firefox was so long to release that I had to resort to using nightlies.
GNOME has a 6 months release cycle. Big difference. We could just as
well not release as well for years, then call it a major change.

> 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...

Yes, the stop energy is working. It is a *proposal* and I feel like
doing something else.

> 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

Your comparing GNOME to Firefox. IMO that is a bad sign. Our users are
not the same. We want the GNOME platform to be used by developers. I
don't see Firefox caring about their embedded platform (although I
wasn't at their presentation).

> > 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.)

I think your confusing this page as it will be the press release or
something.

> > In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and
> > perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than

I don't give a damn about KDE.

> > 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

Your forgetting the most important part: We want to change what GNOME
means, the platform part. *That* is the main intention.

> > 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

We don't want a radical change. Pushing for radical change will lead to
a GNOME 2.0.

> > 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

That is really confusing IMO.

> > 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

We want everything to use non deprecated stuff.

> > 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.

Really the proposal was 10% about the version number. It is about
setting long term goals, allowing more applications in GNOME.

> > 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

KDE 4.0 did not *work* as promised for a long time. That is what we want
to avoid. We don't want a non-working 3.0. That is what generates bad
press.

As I see it, KDE 4.0 was supposed to be the greatest thing ever. Then it
was delayed, while finally the story changed to a 'KDE 4.0 is not KDE
4'. That is something that won't work.

> > 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.

Vista is just really annoying to use for no good reason.

> > 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.

We could just as well stay with 2.xx forever, yes. I'd rather not. We
have a lot of cruft that is finally being removed (gnome-vfs, etc).

-- 
Regards,
Olav