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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list