On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 22:58 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only polished panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI specialists
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.26 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to
complain here.
You have misinterpreted my words; It wasn't a complain for that specific
events, it was an example (but I suppose we could cite/find
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 12:58 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.26 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to
complain here.
You have misinterpreted my words; It wasn't a complain for that specific
Sergey Udaltsov [2011-05-12 20:45 +0100]:
Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
about free software). Also, that is a very effective
In a UDS session this week about this control center issue, one
discussed idea was a hard-coded (in source) whitelist or brightlist.
To be clear, a brightlist would be a set of plugins that appear at the
top as part of the OS and there's some other section where
everything else goes. A whitelist
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
Everyone wins, with exceedingly little technical effort. What do the
g-c-c maintainers feel about that?
So your suggestion is to still have new panels?
The purpose of no external API is not to make it more difficult, but to
On 13 May 2011 10:31, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
So your suggestion is to still have new panels?
Depending on whether you wanted to allow 3rd party panels, you could
use a brightlist or a whitelist. But yes, a public API coupled with a
whitelist to allow only design-approved external
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:47:52AM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
I guess the questions like that will be discussed again and again. The
interaction between GNOME and distros is a very complex matter. On
Loads of distribution people are involved within GNOME. The only
problems occur with
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:46:51AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
Right. And this proposal was designed to allow each design team to
decide their own OS's experience easily by patching the whitelist.
The plan to drop the API adds a larger technical barrier that appears
artificial.
AFAIK, the
Distribution
differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged.
It is not for gnome to decide. See the messages from Ross. Differences are
inevitable. Let's embrace differences, let's minimise patches. Let's be
friendly to downstream.
Anyway, since distros are patching in their capplets -
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 00.51 -0400, William Jon McCann ha
scritto:
How about: raison d'être. What is our mission, what is our reason for
existing? Is it to provide a gummy base for others to adapt, modify,
and differentiate?
No.
Your own vision of open source is totally
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
So IMHO choosing a priori what people can do and what people can't do
is... well, censorship, sorry. Matthias said maintaining meaningful
boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not. Of course this is a
way to maintain a
least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:36:41PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
Let's not go into this type of yes/no discussion any further.
Seems continuing this discussion on
Right. All I asked from the start is documenting the current vision.
Seems continuing this discussion on desktop-devel-list is not going to
change anyones mind
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:28:25AM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
Distribution
differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged.
It is not for gnome to decide. See the messages from Ross. Differences are
inevitable. Let's embrace differences, let's minimise patches. Let's be
friendly
On 2011-05-13 at 12:36, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
the most important release of the past 5 years of Gnome being
successful?
what is your metric of success for the previous
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 12.16 +0200, Olav Vitters ha scritto:
The control-center maintainers made a quick API for GNOME 3.0 only.
Saying the removal is censorship?
Of course not a real world censorship, but something that resembles it.
System Settings is a place that can be useful to
I don't see this happening. Are you talking about GNOME 3 or GNOME 2.x
here?
Gnome3, since gnome2 did not have the goal to define the final experience.
And it was more open.
The whole design part is new. My view is that we're way more friendly to
do things for downstream.
What kind of
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 03:26:00PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
That's what you want. Do distros want the same? Do 3rd party appdevs want
the same? Or do you just not care?
To all: This thread is getting too heated and personal for me to feel
comfortable to try and find ways to continue. So
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 15:49 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov a écrit :
If that is a bad excuse for the heated discussion, at least that
explains why it is hot.
If I summarize the choice of Gnome Dev about panel by an exemple: The
choice of operating system to boot at startup. They don't want to see a
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 17:28 +0200, Gendre Sebastien a écrit :
And if we more summarize: They don't want to have too much of redundant
panels for same features and with different UI logic. They prefer to
have 1 panel with some different back-end.
I don't think this way is bad.
It is a
Luca Ferretti wrote:
snip
Luca, I don't want to be rude, but you, Sergey, David, Emmanuele, and
everyone else who has contributed multiple times to this thread in the
past 24 hours have had your say, you've been heard. You're now just
repeating yourself.
Please stop polluting my in-box. As
2011/5/13 Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org:
Bonus question: are you sure this all work happens upstream can lead
to better and faster solutions?
I forgot a little example for this: 3 years ago I wrote
a trivial patch to add a Search tool selector in Preferred Application
preference tool. Start
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:28, Gendre Sebastien ko...@romandie.com wrote:
If I summarize the choice of Gnome Dev about panel by an exemple: The
choice of operating system to boot at startup. They don't want to see a
panel for manage Grub, a panel to manage Lilo, a panel to manage EFI,
etc. But
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 18:44 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
2011/5/13 Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org:
Bonus question: are you sure this all work happens upstream can lead
to better and faster solutions?
I forgot a little example for this: 3 years ago I wrote
a trivial patch to add a Search
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.42 +0200, Dave Neary ha scritto:
Please stop polluting my in-box. As many others have said, this thread
is going no-where, please just stop posting to it.
This could be true, we are discussing about ideas and visions and anyone
has his strong option. But
Il giorno Sat, 14/05/2011 alle 01.11 +0200, Luca Ferretti ha scritto:
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.42 +0200, Dave Neary ha scritto:
Please stop polluting my in-box. As many others have said, this thread
is going no-where, please just stop posting to it.
This could be true, we are
Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
distributors of GNOME technologies? It seems to me the previous
position was to use the extension points instead of doing vendor
patches. Yet, without extension points it seems that vendor patches are
the only solution there.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 14:45, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
about free
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions
No, GNOME is not a supermarket. It's not a place where you go to get
your technology so you can put it together
No, GNOME is not a supermarket. It's not a place where you go to get
your technology so you can put it together in your own sandbox. This
might be inconvenient for downstreams (including my employer) but it
is what it is. The fact that you _can_ (easily) fork GNOME just
happens to be a
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
My whole point was that in the ideal world GNOME could be extensible
enough so that no _forking_ would be necessary. Extension modules, not
patches. That would be not a side effect of the license but the
Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
How would you distinguish...?
[1] : Except of course if some downstreams do development in their own
fucking sandbox.. no, this is not a cheap jab at Canonical.. it
includes e.g. Red Hat too. Or SUSE.
Thank you, that is very
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
How would you distinguish...?
I don't know. It's typically a highly subjective thing. Mostly it
comes down to what most people refer to as good
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience. Do
we all agree that
I don't know. It's typically a highly subjective thing. Mostly it
comes down to what most people refer to as good taste vs bad
taste. I don't know.
Fair enough.
Not showing 3rd party panels is one path forward. And I think it's the
right one. If all distros just patch in their own panels,
I totally agree, IMHO GNOME is a base to allow distributors, vendors and
third parts to build up and extend their own user experience and
services and fight on free market. No competition means stagnation.
Yes, very true. GNOME wants to dictate some policies. Fair play,
because we own the code.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 16:51, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree, IMHO GNOME is a base to allow distributors, vendors and
third parts to build up and extend their own user experience and
services and fight on free market. No competition means stagnation.
Yes,
We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only polished panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI specialists
are happy with. It is a form of dictate - or I do not know what
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only polished panels to g-c-c. Only panels that
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 16.51 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
Yes. I also think we tried that with GNOME 2 and failed. I mean, look
at GNOME 2's control center - on all distros, it's a royal mess of
random crap from either GNOME, the distro or 3rd party app written by
a kid in a
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
an fancy editor for /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf - it's a completely
inappropriate app because if you know what httpd is, you really don't
want to click GUI buttons - you want to edit the config file with
On 12 May 2011 23:42, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 18.14 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
So? Why this should be a failure?
Because the premise of System Settings in GNOME 3 is,
surprisingly, to change your system settings or personalize the
experience.
So, are there no system settings or personalizations
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 18.14 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
So? Why this should be a failure?
Because the premise of System Settings in GNOME 3 is,
surprisingly, to change your system settings or
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Robert Ancell robert.anc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 May 2011 23:42, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
We should strive to make this as easy as possible and having 20
panels such as Java Settings or HTTPD Control or even Firewall
is something that gets in the way. So if we allowed 3rd party panels,
it would be a failure
On 12 May 2011 20:45, Sergey Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience.
That may be what you think
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
This is really starting to drift into a highly emotional and
non-productive direction.
I'm not emotional, just a little overemphatic :)
Not allowing random third parties to put their pet projects
preferences into the
Then, as I said on another reply, why are gnome-shell extensions allowed
to change gnome-shell so deeply[1]? More, why is gnome-shell providing
support to extensions?
Symptom of disease, obviously. Lethal.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
Hi,
2011/5/12 Sergey Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com:
How can Redhat compete with SUSE if
both of them use GNOME that defines _final_ user experience?
This is just absurd - distros were never supposed to compete with each
other (if I had my way, anyway) - just check the Internet where
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 02:00 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
This is really starting to drift into a highly emotional and
non-productive direction.
I'm not emotional, just a little overemphatic :)
Not allowing random
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, that sounds good. Gnome 3's Control Centre _is_ really good.
However, from the sounds of it, this isn't actually fixing our
problem. This isn't replacing the system menu, or providing any kind
of top level order.
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 17:12 -0700, Dylan McCall wrote:
I wasn't intending to jump into this because it has become vastly
tangential and there's a pretty unhappy signal to noise ratio already.
So, I realize I might be totally misunderstanding this. If I sound
accusatory or anything, it's purely
This is just absurd - distros were never supposed to compete with each
other (if I had my way, anyway)
It was not me who brought the idea of external competition here;)
Anyway, are you saying that all distros would be happy to use
identical UI?
You know what I think is selfish? Treating GNOME
2011/5/13 Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com:
Okay, that sounds good. Gnome 3's Control Centre _is_ really good.
However, from the sounds of it, this isn't actually fixing our
problem. This isn't replacing the system menu, or providing any kind
of top level order. It configures Gnome, and only
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
BTW pet project... IMHO pet is something that plays down the merits,
isn't it?
Yeah, a little. Sorry.
What I wanted to allude to with the term
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Matthias Clasen
matthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote:
Figuring this out is hard, and
involves talking to designers; it will only happen if we put a hurdle
that forces people to do
I honestly don't understand. Didn't I just put it in words ? Of
course, I didn't say 'twist hands', since I disagree that that is what
we are doing. I would go for 'insisting on design, integration and
quality'.
I was asking to create a document (on live.gnome.org) where all those
things would
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.34 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Some examples of this that we've already seen are:
- color management (do you know what a perceptual rendering intent is ?)
- kerberos tickets
Hi,
This thread has clearly jumped the shark but there is one point worth
responding to here. (which is a shame because deja dup is really
pretty cool. It is too bad the thread was turned on a tangent)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
...
And note,
62 matches
Mail list logo
