Re: [Usability]Feedback on GNOME 2

> And I too am disappointed with some of the configurability of RH8,
> particularly things like the difficulty of rearranging menu items. But
> GNOME 2 is making progress. And I'm sure some medium will be struck
> between the "one-size fits all" and the "so configurable that it's
> unconfigurable".

I am quoting Joshua on this. He stated that "GNOME 2 is a making
progress." A final version should not be a "making progress." 

Jeff, I would like to hear more about how the common Red Hat user who
likes configurability, is affected by brilliant plan to make GNOME 2 a
corporate desktop distribution. Do you not believe you will lose
developer support ?

- Darren Alcorn

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 21:45, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Darren Alcorn">
> > Joshua, Jeff [ and to who it may concern ],
> > 
> > RED HAT 8.0 - Released to the public as a commercial product
> > Therefore, It should not be RC4 or some other unfinished build. If GNOME
> > 2 was not "complete," it should not be used. In other words, GNOME 2
> > should not have been released as "incomplete" as well as "Red Hat 8."
> Um, Red Hat shipped GNOME 2.0.1 + their changes for things like fontconfig,
> Xft, etc. It was by no means a pre-release.
> > Perhaps GNOME 2 should change it's licensing on GNOME 2 to say it cannot
> > be used commercially as of yet.
> That would be mindlessly stupid, apart from being incompatible with the
> (L)GPL.
> > I cannot stress how important it is to hold back releases until products
> > are truly ready. The public does not want to be a beta tester against its
> > will.
> What was not ready? Why are you under the impression that GNOME 2.0 was a
> pre-release?
> - Jeff
> -- 
>    For a list of reasons why technology has failed to improve our lives,    
>                               please press 3.                               

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]