Hi Jon, I'm confused...
William Jon McCann wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Vincent Untz <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sure, it's not our priority nor target, in terms of development (and it >> shouldn't be). But to a lot of people, "fallback" means "you'll get some >> ugly stuff that barely works", and while I do think we want to push >> people to use GNOME Shell, there's no reason to make users who can't >> use it feel second-class GNOME users. > > It is second class I don't think there is any point in whitewashing > it. Whether or not you get something that barely works has everything > to do with how much attention it gets in design, development, and > testing. If you want to use something for a fallback that won't > really get any of those three it had better be simple as hell. And > ban any complexity that does not provide essential functionality. Last week I got the impression that you were proposing the removal of gnome-applets (and Orca) because of a lack of manpower required to bring them up to GNOME 3.0 standard and port to GTK+ 3. But now I have the impression that even if some people stepped up with a plan to bring applets to the fallback mode that you would be opposed to including this work. Is this a manpower issue, or a design issue? I feel like distributors' decision to ship GNOME 3 or not in their post-March releases will depend on how the experience degrades for 2D only users (and I am convinced there are many more of these than this thread suggests). Your advice to "stick with GNOME 2.32 if you don't want the GNOME 3 experience" may well be the advice that a number of distributions take, for fear of alienating part of their user base. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [email protected] _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
