Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 are happy with. It is a form of dictate - or I do not know what dictate is. Or did I misunderstand some statements? In a way, even HIG itself is a dictate - a relatively weak form of it (but at least put into the document, which is the best thing about HIG!) ___ well, it's really a way of asking people interested in having stuff in g-c-c to cooperate with GNOME designers and developers. Apart from that, that's how every piece of GNOME software works: maintainers include what they are happy with, not everything anyone wants to add. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 others) about how upstream could be slow to accept some changes. Or refuse, but this is a different story... /Bastien, kernel, udev and X.org contributor because fixing things properly is important Sorry, I don't understand how this pedigree could be useful here. Are you saying a proper solution to search feature will need changes in kernel too? :) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 events, it was an example (but I suppose we could cite/find others) about how upstream could be slow to accept some changes. Or refuse, but this is a different story... /Bastien, kernel, udev and X.org contributor because fixing things properly is important Sorry, I don't understand how this pedigree could be useful here. It's just my way of showing that things can be achieved by draining the swamp. I'm certainly not the biggest contributor to draining the swamp, but it shows that even though my interests are on GNOME, work is still needed on the underlying layers to achieve things at the higher level. In the case of those particular modules, I had to contribute to all those, in addition to gnome-settings-daemon to make Disable touchpad buttons work on a variety of laptops. Are you saying a proper solution to search feature will need changes in kernel too? :) recursive mtime, and fanotify support in the kernel would certainly help startup performance, and indexing. Cheers ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 way to alienate 3rd parties (app developers, distromakers). I suspect, that attitude in gnome possibly affected Canonical decision to drop gnome 3. Not at all. C/U did not drop GNOME 3, the reason why the current release does not have it was a timing/planning/manpower issue. GNOME 3 is landing in the development release as we speak. Please let's not make this appear as a we don't want to play with your toys any more kind of argument. :-) This would not only be totally stupid from our side, but we would also just shoot ourselves in the foot with that. Aside from that the technical issue remains that this does make it harder to customize c-c to a downstream's needs, of course. It's really good that the individual changes are being discussed here (deja-dup, etc.), and perhaps for the case of Ubuntu One we can even find some better solution than totally Ubuntu specific, but I'm afraid it is a fact that we will always have a need to do some customization (like adding our Additional Drivers, or at least brand Ubuntu One as such, etc.). We'll get along either way, I just think it is important for GNOME to understand that closing APIs like that won't really stop Ubuntu (or Meego, etc.) from changing it anyway. Thank you, Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 would instead just stop anything else from appearing. This way, GNOME designers can enforce a set of plugins that only they want for their OS. Since it's in-source, it would be difficult for random third parties to work around it. But at the same time, other distros that also believe themselves to be creating an OS can distro-patch the list and have the experience they want. Everyone wins, with exceedingly little technical effort. What do the g-c-c maintainers feel about that? -mt ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 ensure: - control center does everything it should - ensure functionality is available across distributions - relevant options appear in the place the design team thinks it should be; not in yet another panel So focus should be on ensuring that options are shown in the right places and that whatever functionality is needed, is added in control-center in a way it will work for all distributions. Having another panel does not provide a good user interface. As explained, no 'java options'. Even for firewall, if it makes sense, it should be shown where the designers think it makes sense (e.g. some system/network thing), not where it is technically easiest. It seems there is an assumption that no external API is meant to force; it is not. The purpose is to ensure that the control center options follows a logic (designed) structure; not have options all over the place. If you want additional option in Ubuntu, address this to either the Ubuntu design team or the GNOME design team. Then the options should be added whereever the design teams thinks it should go. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 modules. It seems there is an assumption that no external API is meant to force; it is not. The purpose is to ensure that the control center options follows a logic (designed) structure; not have options all over the place. If you want additional option in Ubuntu, address this to either the Ubuntu design team or the GNOME design team. Then the options should be added whereever the design teams thinks it should go. 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. -mt ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 distributions which do not have the resources, or
actively prefer working outside of GNOME (e.g. Canonical, Mandriva at
the moment).
Pretty sure Fedora and openSUSE is fully aware of what the intend is.
Some distributions might not be aware yet, but things are still under
development. Not knowing is not bad; not everything has been defined
yet.
What you do see is various individuals talking about specific things
across distributions. Think e.g. the session handling of systemd.
political level, on user experience level, on technical level. Please
please please - put together the policy document. Even if its content
would make me and Luca unhappy - at least that would be some document
people could read, could refer to (may be, it would even make me shut
up:). At least I could send unhappy minority to read that document
when they WTF me (that happens a lot on linux.org.ru AKA Russian
Slashdot). Then they would decide if they want to stick with GNOME or
just move on - that might save d-d-l one day from the invasion of all
those unhappy heads.
I don't get at all what the purpose is (concretely) of the document. Nor
what contents it should have. What do you mean with policy? It feels
very vague and undefined ('interaction points'?).
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS
I think above is enough. We aim to have a nice OS. Distribution
differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged. I dislike that
I have a Mandriva control center. It is nice, but specific to Mandriva.
I don't see the benefit. I want a nice integrated experience, not a
collection of components.
Distributions can still change things as they wish, but that is not our
goal.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 API was only about new panels. I wrote a whole post (which I am not going to repeat) that new panels are not what is intended. As such, there is and was no API. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 - gnome FAILED the main goal - to define the final experience. And that failure was unevitable. So closing apis is just a form of avoiding responsibility for the failure. I dislike that I have a Mandriva control center. It is unevitable with the current approach umho. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 different from mine. Sorry. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 strong identity[1], but how does it implies? That we have the Truth? And even if we had, we can't annoying restrain distros, third parties to modify and customize: this is a part of fundamental right of FLOSS. GNOME is provided under the GPL (and other FLOSS licences like LGPL). The control-center maintainers made a quick API for GNOME 3.0 only. Saying the removal is censorship? What about all the options that are not in the GNOME 3.0 control center? What about our license? What about a maintainers decision and the goal of a project? I think the last bit is the only one that the disagreement is about. The goal is shifting from a 'mix and match' components as you please towards relying more and more on specific components. Your definition of censorship applies to everything that a maintainer does. Not applying a patch or implementing a feature would also be censorship. GNOME is now way more design orientated; could also call it decisions.. or censorship. The latter has a strong emotional impression. I'd rather have people talk about the goal of GNOME without too much emotional implications. Too much emotions only leads to heated arguments and people not listening to eachother anymore. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 desktop-devel-list is not going to change anyones mind at this stage. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 to downstream. Anyway, since distros are patching in their capplets - gnome FAILED the main goal - to define the final experience. And that failure was unevitable. So closing apis is just a form of avoiding responsibility for the failure. I don't see this happening. Are you talking about GNOME 3 or GNOME 2.x here? The whole design part is new. My view is that we're way more friendly to do things for downstream. Instead of letting people patch things themselves, we'll look at their needs and see where we can add it. Calling it a failure is premature. I dislike that I have a Mandriva control center. It is unevitable with the current approach umho. But we're changing our approach. We want people to suggest their needs at GNOME, then we'll see how we can solve their issues. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 model? contributions from downstream? overall quality of the external capplets? ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 third parties and you are arbitrarily choosing to lock it. You are preventing someone to do something, not because it's not (technically) possible, but because you (politically) don't want. What about all the options that are not in the GNOME 3.0 control center? Good question. For example all Power settings options currently available only through dconf-editor or gsettings... With current approach (no extra panels) you are going to kill the free enterprise. We have the official Power panel with few options and no one is allowed to provide an additional Extra Power releasing a gnome-control-center-extra-power-0.4-0.tar.gz package with controls for hidden options. It seems the only allowed (but discouraged, if you don't plan to put your stuff upstream) way is to fully patch gnome-control-center module. This approach is only feasible if you are a distro maker. We have a framework (i.e. system settings), but we don't allow people to provide their own additions and improvements in a simple way. More, we dislike their additions, because they don't fit in our desktop vision. DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying an Extra Power is an actual improvement for anyone or it should exist. Also I know gnome-tweak-tool is available. The previous was just an example, not actual software. What about our license? This was never an issue to me. My concerns are about policies. What about a maintainers decision and the goal of a project? I've asked a similar (unanswered) question before: who is in charge to settle those _technical_ and _political_ sides of GNOME Desktop development? Of course maintainers choose for their own modules. But IMHO this issue is more related to GNOME as DE project then gnome-control-center as a single module, 'cause it involves the core nature of GNOME Desktop as place for third parts to develop their own solution. Your definition of censorship applies to everything that a maintainer does. Not applying a patch or implementing a feature would also be censorship. Yes and no, IMHO there is a difference between select the patch/feature to apply/implement and force people to collaborate upstream See what's happening in main thread about deja-dup inclusion: now Michael have to choose between kill his own beloved project and merge with gnome-c-c or keep its identity and let it survive in GNOME as second class citizen. If we really want to promote this kind of policy (I've another emotional word for it: cannibalization), well, sorry, I've to strongly disagree. I prefer to have a little confusional System Settings dialog, in exchange for cross-fertilisation between GNOME and external stuff. GNOME is now way more design orientated; could also call it decisions.. or censorship. The latter has a strong emotional impression. I'd rather have people talk about the goal of GNOME without too much emotional implications. Unfortunately we are not speaking about technical issues :( So it's not simple to discuss putting away our own convictions on how GNOME and FLOSS should be. Too much emotions only leads to heated arguments and people not listening to eachother anymore. To be honest, I feel nobody replied on my own not-so-emotional points and questions, such as: * gnome-shell is extensions friendly; if we want a full control on end users experience, then we should remove them too; * we are going to make gnome-c-c a closed place for non-upstream and non-distro vendors, and IMHO this is a failure from a market point of view (why should third parties choose to invest in a dictatorial software?) * should GNOME be a final product or a resource for distro? a resource to customize, of course * are we so much afraid about customizations? are customization the Evil? -- ok, this was a bonus and sarcastic question :) Cheers, Luca ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 friendship is that?? You force downstream to do things upstream or suffer patching. You are taking the freedom to extend comfortably - the freedom that existed in gnome2. Friendship? Calling it a failure is premature. It is a failure from the start, because distros will be patching. They will define the final experience, not gnome. End-users almost never use vanilla gnome. They never will, distros will patch. But we're changing our approach. We want people to suggest their needs at GNOME, then we'll see how we can solve their issues. That's what you want. Do distros want the same? Do 3rd party appdevs want the same? Or do you just not care? Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 I'll just stop. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 panel for manage Grub, a panel to manage Lilo, a panel to manage EFI, etc. But they want to see a generic panel make directly in Gnome Control Center and different back-end for each technologie. All that to have only one UI for all usage and don't break the logical of all Gnome UI. 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. Regards. -- Gendre Sebastien ko...@romandie.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 very good approach, but I’m afraid forcing it fails the reality check. Until you reach a state where everything a downstream user might need is available in a correct way in the control center, it sounds better to let downstreams add a few more things to it rather than leaving them without a place for these extra settings. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 many others have said, this thread is going no-where, please just stop posting to it. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 from [1] for reference. It was rejected, 'cause the upstream vision was: we want to provide a single search tool, no need to let people to choose their own. Today GNOME still lacks a search tool/feature :( [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 they want to see a generic panel make directly in Gnome Control Center and different back-end for each technologie. All that to have only one UI for all usage and don't break the logical of all Gnome UI. Please see David's 5th reply to this thread about what our plans for boot loader UI is. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 tool selector in Preferred Application preference tool. Start from [1] for reference. It was rejected, 'cause the upstream vision was: we want to provide a single search tool, no need to let people to choose their own. Today GNOME still lacks a search tool/feature :( The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to complain here. There are plenty of hackish things that we'd like to implement, but they need to be implemented properly. /Bastien, kernel, udev and X.org contributor because fixing things properly is important ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 honestly this thread also helped to expose our own points of view and showed there was a lack of communication in our community (and maybe other issues). To be honest, nobody answered to some question I've answered or clarified some doubts. So, can you suggest me a better place to have a frank and official reply? Cheers, Luca. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 discussing about ideas and visions and anyone has his strong option. But honestly this thread also helped to expose our own points of view and showed there was a lack of communication in our community (and maybe other issues). To be honest, nobody answered to some question I've answered or I've asked of course ;) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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. 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 way to alienate 3rd parties (app developers, distromakers). I suspect, that attitude in gnome possibly affected Canonical decision to drop gnome 3. I would not be surprised if other distros follow that example. First _unfriendly_ move from GNOME side: distros have to either patch g-c-c to introduce distro-specific capplets (maintaining patches is not the same thing as maintaining separate modules using relatively stable APIs) or invent their own settings mgmt frameworks. If some distro chooses the 2nd way - why stop? Next step - move all things to shiny new distro-specific config UI, then - replace gnome-shell. Good bye, GNOME3! 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 GNOME should be distribution-friendly, that GNOME should trust distributions, make their life reasonably comfortable? So let them put the configuration for the drivers, for the system services, if they like, etc into g-c-c. Let them = make it reasonably comfortable = use APIs, not patching. If we do not trust distributions ... we have to change a lot of things in GNOME, starting from the first letter of the name (back at the days of GNOME 1 G was for GNU) All those rants aside, let me ask one question: is this APIlessness considered as a temporary measure (I know, gnome 3 is currently highly undocumented - at least I did not see g-c-c 3 UI guidelines) for some transitional period or is it a policy that is planned to last in foreseeble future of gnome3? Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 software). So every piece of free software that hasn't yet implemented extension points is offensive to free software, according to you? Doesn't that seem like a somewhat extreme position? Also, that is a very effective way to alienate 3rd parties (app developers, distromakers). Not really, no. UI's that users don't want to use because they are confusing alienates 3rd parties because, well, we don't have any users. Why don't we get some users and then worry about alienating developers by encouraging good design? I suspect, that attitude in gnome possibly affected Canonical decision to drop gnome 3. This is completely fabricated speculation which is, in fact, not true. Please refrain from spreading false information; that doesn't help anyone. distros have to either patch g-c-c to introduce distro-specific capplets (maintaining patches is not the same thing as maintaining separate modules using relatively stable APIs) We don't want 3rd parties putting things in g-c-c--that's all we're saying. But it's free software; they can if they want to, of course. GNOME is not an OS. But it could be. GNOME is not a distribution. Right. GNOME is a core desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like)/ We want it to be more. All those rants aside, let me ask one question: is this APIlessness considered as a temporary measure (I know, gnome 3 is currently highly undocumented - at least I did not see g-c-c 3 UI guidelines) for some transitional period or is it a policy that is planned to last in foreseeble future of gnome3? Couldn't you have asked before ranting? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 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 side-effect of the license. It's not the major point of the project. David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 side-effect of the license. It's not the major point of the project. 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 fundamental feature of the architecture. Do you see the difference? Well, anyway, there are other people who drive the project. I just think it would be fair if GNOME could make some official statement on extensibility policy. That question was already asked in that thread, before my intervention. That probably is worth a page on live.gnome.org Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 fundamental feature of the architecture. Do you see the difference? 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 basement. With GNOME 3.2, we will have a simpler control center (since the extension mechanism is going away) but it will be _awesome_. Sure, the GNOME 3.x control center doesn't do all you need yet but the point really is that we're engaging the current providers of control center items to _work_ with GNOME. In particular, it means working with designers. And in some cases (e.g. boot loader) the solution is sometimes to not have a control center item... but maybe put the feature in the system restart dialog instead. The other bonus thing is that GNOME will _include_ the feature instead of each and every distro doing their own thing. So in the long run everybody wins [1]. Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease. Especially in young evolving software such as e.g. GNOME 3.x. Don't succumb to it. Just say no. David [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. Trust me when I say that the RH desktop team and the RH team doing the system-config-* tools have fought _a lot_ about these issues. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 interesting and insightful info. The question is - could (or would) GNOME do something to avoid that situation with distros? g-c-c could be for linux what system preferences are for macos or control panel for windows - configuring every aspect of OS except configs of desktop apps (but including system configs, server apps config etc). Well, if gnome does not want it, let it be so. I am just kindly asking to put together some kind of policy document about all those things. Is that a reasonable and constructive request? Sergey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 taste vs bad taste. I don't know. [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 interesting and insightful info. The question is - could (or would) GNOME do something to avoid that situation with distros? 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, maybe we need to use a bigger stick to make them work upstream. g-c-c could be for linux what system preferences are for macos or control panel for windows - configuring every aspect of OS except configs of desktop apps (but including system configs, server apps config etc). But that way you end up with useless things like a Java Control Panel or httpd Control Panel [1] and other non-sense that you see on Windows (and OS X for that matter - it's just that people don't install much 3rd party crap there). [1] : for example, system-config-httpd in Fedora is nothing more than 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 vi(1) or whatever your editor of choice is. Same goes for a lot of other distro-specific config tools created because we need a GUI without really thinking whether it was a good idea. /rant Well, if gnome does not want it, let it be so. I am just kindly asking to put together some kind of policy document about all those things. Is that a reasonable and constructive request? Not sure we need to be all lawyerish about it and write policy documents and whatnot - I'd rather people spend time on writing awesome code and doing awesome designs. All in the same sandbox :-) And, FWIW, I'm just expressing my personal opinion about GNOME and nothing I'm saying here is authoritative. It could be that the gnome-control-center maintainers and others have other views about it. David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 GNOME should be distribution-friendly, that GNOME should trust distributions, make their life reasonably comfortable? 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. But it seems by now we are a small minority :-| All those rants aside, let me ask one question: is this APIlessness considered as a temporary measure (I know, gnome 3 is currently highly undocumented - at least I did not see g-c-c 3 UI guidelines) for some transitional period or is it a policy that is planned to last in foreseeble future of gnome3? May I add: who is in charge to settle those _technical_ and _political_ sides of GNOME Desktop development? ;-) Cheers, Luca ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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, maybe we need to use a bigger stick to make them work upstream. Well, their own panels might control things that are not related to the desktop as such. I do not think anyone in gnome would welcome those things upstream... But that way you end up with useless things like a Java Control Panel or httpd Control Panel [1] and other non-sense that you see on Windows (and OS X for that matter - it's just that people don't install much 3rd party crap there). Right, httpd control panel is basically one example of what redhat's system-config-* tools are doing. 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 vi(1) or whatever your editor of choice is. Same goes for a lot of other distro-specific config tools created because we need a GUI without really thinking whether it was a good idea. /rant Err... Personally I always thought that the area where IIS was way ahead of httpd is the GUI configuration tools nicely integrated into system configuration GUIs. Not sure we need to be all lawyerish about it and write policy documents and whatnot - I'd rather people spend time on writing awesome code and doing awesome designs. All in the same sandbox :-) Well, it is not about law - it would just indicate that people should not even bother using temporary public APIs that might occationally (for some tactical reason) be provided. That would explain that the only way to keep long-term health relations with GNOME as upstream is do to THESE things and not to do THOSE things. Helpful strategy hints. And, FWIW, I'm just expressing my personal opinion about GNOME and nothing I'm saying here is authoritative. It could be that the gnome-control-center maintainers and others have other views about it. Sure. But according to this thread, your opinion is very similar to the ideas expressed by many others, including g-c-c drivers. Thank you for explaining things. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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. But that dictate may kill gnome publicly - if distros would not want to be dictated. Back into the history, X11 provided mechanism, not policy. GNOME enforces policies. Fine, but let's not go too far with this dictate. And anyway, even if we dictate policies - at least we should have courtesy to put them in words, I guess. But it seems by now we are a small minority :-| Seem so. May I add: who is in charge to settle those _technical_ and _political_ sides of GNOME Desktop development? ;-) Very good question, actually. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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, very true. GNOME wants to dictate some policies. Fair play, because we own the code. But that dictate may kill gnome publicly - if distros would not want to be dictated. Back into the history, X11 provided mechanism, not policy. GNOME enforces policies. Fine, but let's not go too far with this dictate. And anyway, even if we dictate policies - at least we should have courtesy to put them in words, I guess. We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way we envision, period. Dictating is what Mozilla tried to pull with their trademark policy. We aren't doing that. And I can't see us ever trying to do that, either. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 dictate is. Or did I misunderstand some statements? In a way, even HIG itself is a dictate - a relatively weak form of it (but at least put into the document, which is the best thing about HIG!) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 gnome UI specialists are happy with. It is a form of dictate - or I do not know what dictate is. Or did I misunderstand some statements? In a way, even HIG itself is a dictate - a relatively weak form of it (but at least put into the document, which is the best thing about HIG!) I think this argument has reached the point of absurdity. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 basement. So? Why this should be a failure? If so you should say the same for Applications menu: it provides stuff from GNOME, stuff from distributor and stuff you install using a third part repository. And sometimes people have installed many web applications and their Internet menu was bigger the 10 items (you know, this was not approved in GNOME2 design) :P And I've to admit: I've install Virtualbox even though it could break the polish of my GNOME3 experience. Please do not mix the feature (allow third part System Settings panel) with misuse (a specific System Setting panel is badly designed and its controls should be placed somewhere else). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 vi(1) or whatever your editor of choice is. Same goes for a lot of other distro-specific config tools created because we need a GUI without really thinking whether it was a good idea. /rant Err... Personally I always thought that the area where IIS was way ahead of httpd is the GUI configuration tools nicely integrated into system configuration GUIs. Didn't IIS actually add a configuration file after strong demands from administrator? I don't know, it's not important. Now, whether a HTTP server needs config UI or not... nothing prevents anyone from writing an app that does that... It just won't be shown in the System Settings, that's all. Which I actually think makes sense. I actually regard a stock HTTP server like Apache (or even an application server such as e.g. Tomcat) more as an application, not an OS component. And I think, these days, you'd maybe want to write the configuration UI for a webserver using HTML5 and JS anyway. I don't know. That said, it could be that some HTTP server configuration could appear in the Sharing panel, see http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointOne/Features/Sharing - for example, to share your public folder via HTTP and exposing a bookmark via mDNS so it shows up in browsers on the LAN that supports this (for example, Safari and Epiphany I think). That would be handy. Either way, I think this is completely orthogonal to the discussion on whether such a panel makes sense. I'm just mentioning this to explain how GNOME should, no wait, MUST, be driven by design. Not some misguided feature-for-feature parity thing or some PHB-directive saying everything needs a GUI. In there lies madness. David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 define the _final_ user experience. Do we all agree that GNOME should be distribution-friendly, that GNOME should trust distributions, make their life reasonably comfortable? 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. But it seems by now we are a small minority :-| Or are we a silent majority? It seems we don't have enough information to say either way. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 other then the ones provided by GNOME? 6.x billions of people and only ten (or so) settings panel? 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 because trusting that people won't write broken panels like the ones mentioned above is, unfortunately, very naive. Wait: first, it's GNOME3, not GNOME2, you can't provide a new panel simply adding a .desktop file with proper keys. You have to develop it using proper API. This is a first barrier for broken stuff. Second: are we a censorship? are we fighting against the ugly? are all non-gnome developers odd and stupid? It seems your starting point is: everybody's wrong, but not GNOME people. I feel it really offensive and counterproductive for GNOME project itself. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 personalize the experience. So, are there no system settings or personalizations other then the ones provided by GNOME? 6.x billions of people and only ten (or so) settings panel? 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 because trusting that people won't write broken panels like the ones mentioned above is, unfortunately, very naive. Wait: first, it's GNOME3, not GNOME2, you can't provide a new panel simply adding a .desktop file with proper keys. You have to develop it using proper API. This is a first barrier for broken stuff. Second: are we a censorship? are we fighting against the ugly? are all non-gnome developers odd and stupid? It seems your starting point is: everybody's wrong, but not GNOME people. I feel it really offensive and counterproductive for GNOME project itself. Speaking of offensive, suggesting that GNOME is a censorship is pretty offensive. Not to mention insulting. I'm not going to have a conversation with you like this. Please keep it real. Thanks, David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 (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 GNOME should be distribution-friendly, that GNOME should trust distributions, make their life reasonably comfortable? 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. But it seems by now we are a small minority :-| Or are we a silent majority? It seems we don't have enough information to say either way. Either way, it isn't what GNOME is about or really has ever been about. Please read: http://blog.fishsoup.net/2011/03/11/what-does-the-user-see/ There isn't any point in spending time to design, plan, craft a user experience for it to be just bits of putty in another's hands. That's an absurd premise. Very simply, we aim for external competition, internal cooperation. Not the other way around. Thanks, Jon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 because trusting that people won't write broken panels like the ones mentioned above is, unfortunately, very naive. Wait: first, it's GNOME3, not GNOME2, you can't provide a new panel simply adding a .desktop file with proper keys. You have to develop it using proper API. This is a first barrier for broken stuff. Second: are we a censorship? are we fighting against the ugly? are all non-gnome developers odd and stupid? It seems your starting point is: everybody's wrong, but not GNOME people. I feel it really offensive and counterproductive for GNOME project itself. This is really starting to drift into a highly emotional and non-productive direction. Not allowing random third parties to put their pet projects preferences into the very core of GNOME is very different from censorship. It is maintaining meaningful boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 but, since some time now, it's not what most active core GNOME contributors are aiming to. Yes, GNOME should be an OS. Yes, GNOME should define the final user experience. Why? Because doing software without *well* defined boundaries is a technical maintenance nightmare (especially in a free software project with the usual lack of human resources) and will never yield the kind of cohesive, fluid experience that IMO constitutes the GNOME vision. Rui ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 very core of GNOME is very different from censorship. It is maintaining meaningful boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not. 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? BTW pet project... IMHO pet is something that plays down the merits, isn't it? [1] see http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 people been cringing about such infighting over 1% user share that the Linux desktop commands. If GNOME is competing against anyone, it's Microsoft Windows, Apple's OS X and maybe a select few others. Maybe you should check up on e.g. Red Hat's or Novell's business model. And compare it with the business model of less successful distro companies. Hint: it's not about how the desktop user experience is defined. Or what set of kernel patches that is being carrier. Or whether the distro bends over and ships illegal kernel modules in the name of competing with other distros. I think the idea that GNOME is the final-final product is unrealistically selfish. You know what I think is selfish? Treating GNOME like it's just a factory spitting out technology, at your bidding, that you can put together as you see fit. And then not giving any credit or contributing your changes back upstream. Think about it. David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 third parties to put their pet projects preferences into the very core of GNOME is very different from censorship. It is maintaining meaningful boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not. 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? Because people don't ship those as default. In exactly the same way that you can build panels for the control-center very easily if you're a developer, even though the headers don't get installed. So if you wanted to hack on a new panel, you'd probably fork gnome-control-center on github, and provide a mega patch for review in bugzilla. As long as the panel was designed, and the services integrate with the core of GNOME, and they serve a purpose for a large number of our users, it'll get in. BTW pet project... IMHO pet is something that plays down the merits, isn't it? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pet_project [1] see http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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. It configures Gnome, and only Gnome. From here arises a pretty serious question: what does Gnome have to do with my screen resolution, and what am I to do if I am using NVidia's proprietary driver which comes with nvidia-settings? I no longer have the System menu, and apparently this won't be in Control Centre either. Either Gnome needs to keep up with everything nvidia-settings does, nvidia-settings needs to be an official Gnome module, or our users need to search for nvidia-settings as if it is any other application (eg: in the Applications section of the Activities overlay). On this same vein, it sounds like users will need to know what Gnome is and that Control Centre configures Gnome if they expect to find the particular configuration panel they are looking for. Am I on the right track here? GNOME3 does offer you the application overview to find applications, including nice search. If nvidia-settings is properly installed, it should show up there and be easy to find. Of course, it would be best for the larger ecosystem if the nvidia proprietary driver would become a better citizen by implementing new enough xrandr and other extensions that make configuring it just work using same tools that work for every other driver. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 my writing getting carried away :) Here goes… In any Gnome 2 desktop that has been loved, the System menu has many applications which do not exist upstream. An integrated control centre gives users a nice way to find those applications on the basis that they are accessed for similar reasons: configuring services and things that relate to the entire system (where each panel might affect more than one device, hence keywords). 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 Gnome. Nope. It configures the system. Printers, Date Time settings, Network, Bluetooth and I'm sure more things in the future. That's not configuring GNOME that's configuring the system (in fact, the Bluetooth panel has _zero_ user configuration. Everything is system configuration). From here arises a pretty serious question: what does Gnome have to do with my screen resolution, and what am I to do if I am using NVidia's proprietary driver which comes with nvidia-settings? I no longer have the System menu, and apparently this won't be in Control Centre either. Either Gnome needs to keep up with everything nvidia-settings does, nvidia-settings needs to be an official Gnome module, or our users need to search for nvidia-settings as if it is any other application (eg: in the Applications section of the Activities overlay). The nvidia settings will never integrate properly with GNOME, just like they don't integrate with Windows. Fire up a Mac with NVidia cards in it, do you see NVidia settings in the control panel? Nope. If they want to integrate the settings the NVidia drivers provide, they just need to use the same APIs as the other card makers. Then the display panel will work as expected. We don't want that to happen: https://twitter.com/#!/hadessuk/status/68477119738548225 On this same vein, it sounds like users will need to know what Gnome is and that Control Centre configures Gnome if they expect to find the particular configuration panel they are looking for. Am I on the right track here? -- Dylan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 like it's just a factory spitting out technology, at your bidding, that you can put together as you see fit. And then not giving any credit or contributing your changes back upstream. Think about it. I totally support that idea. That collaboration should be mutual - or it just would not work. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 Gnome. From here arises a pretty serious question: what does Gnome have to do with my screen resolution GNOME (technically gnome-shell) is the thing responsible for the final pixels that hit your displays so it obviously has to take care of resolution. and what am I to do if I am using NVidia's proprietary driver which comes with nvidia-settings? I no longer have the System menu, and apparently this won't be in Control Centre either. Either Gnome needs to keep up with everything nvidia-settings does, nvidia-settings needs to be an official Gnome module, or our users need to search for nvidia-settings as if it is any other application (eg: in the Applications section of the Activities overlay). NVidia just has to get its act together and implement the X randr API so that the Control Center's Display panel can work with their blob as it can with the other drivers. Or people can use nouveau. Oh, and if users have installed the nvidia blob they surely can read the documentation and know that nvidia-settings exists and what it's used for. Rui ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 'pet' is that third-party panels tend to focus on the narrow needs of the project they belong to, and expose a lot of special purpose options that seem important to the developers who are deeply involved in that project. Some examples of this that we've already seen are: - color management (do you know what a perceptual rendering intent is ?) - kerberos tickets (would you know whether to request a proxiable or a forwardable ticket ?) When looking at it from the whole-desktop perspective, many of those options are typically better off in the special-purpose app than in the panel, while the few relevant options might better be located in another, already-existing panel. Figuring this out is hard, and involves talking to designers; it will only happen if we put a hurdle that forces people to do it. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 it. Those words hurdle that FORCES people is EXACTLY what I meant saying that gnome DICTATES. That's what I am asking to put into the policy document, explaining relations with distributions. But it looks like there is subconscious anxiety around that - noone steps up to put in words the fact that gnome kind of twists hands. 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'. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 be put together and explained. That document would have some more or less formal status of policy, so it could be referenced. Entitled GNOME-to-distribution interaction policies and guidelines or smth... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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 (would you know whether to request a proxiable or a forwardable ticket ?) Good examples. Those features could be actually useful to someone, but not eligible as a feature for all (desktop) users. When looking at it from the whole-desktop perspective, many of those options are typically better off in the special-purpose app than in the panel, while the few relevant options might better be located in another, already-existing panel. Figuring this out is hard, and involves talking to designers; it will only happen if we put a hurdle that forces people to do it. Yes, but you (as user) are not forced to install all existing GNOME related packages in your repositories, neither distros will install them in your stead :) Here in Italy we have an adage: trow away the baby and dirty water together[1]. In order to avoid bad software (dirty water) we are refusing good software (the baby) too. Personally I'm confident users are able to choose what they need and what is good or bad. [1] hint: this adage assumes the baby was placed inside a bowl with water to take a bath. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]
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, while this is just an example, similar customizations are not rare in the real world. Preventing people a priori (professionals, not kids in the basement) to use GNOME as a base to build something different IMHO means to fail as open source project. As long as we're throwing around Latin phrases to sound fancy we may as well use some French as well. 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. It is to create the most beautiful computing experience we can imagine, using free software, that helps provide access to a web of enlightenment, freedom of expression, and connections to people you would ordinarily never have in the physical/political world. Something that, because it is free software, allows anyone to actively participate in the future - rather than simply passively consume. Feel free to call that what you like. I call it an operating system. It is what we've been working to create for a decade now. We (GNOME) have built nearly all of the modern Linux user-space subsystems to facilitate this goal. It is not new or novel. It is why we are here. There is no point in being timid about this. It is brave and it is meritorious. Does our work, by its nature, allow or encourage modification, adaptation, and reinvention? Absolutely. Is that enough? No. We expect more of ourselves and the world expects more from us. Very pointedly, GNOME does not exist exclusively for the benefit of derivatives. The reason people react strongly to that suggestion is that it is profoundly disrespectful to the hundreds or thousands of people working passionately to craft a intentional and exceptional user experience with GNOME. We are building a thing and we've been doing it for a long time and will continue to do so. The fact that you can modify it is an artifact of the methodology and is not our core purpose. We care about what the user sees. We care about user experience and we take design seriously. And to be successful that is exactly what we must do. Well, of course I've another option. Switch to KDE as base system :) If these goals do not align well with yours, you are free, of course, to do as you wish. But as you know such an exclamation is typically considered, as with Godwin's law, to signal the end of a conversation. And I hope it is. Love, Jon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
