We can agree to disagree on this point. I also want to say that I mean no offense. GNOME 3 is an excellent project. Really, I can appreciate how much energy and passion you and the team have put into it. But I just want to clarify that my comments and Proposal in no way shape or form maligns or put's down GNOME 3 or the hard work you've put into it.
My primary concern isn't GNOME 3. It's the lack of a commercially viable GNOME 2 based desktop product. It's also the fragmentation of the GNOME desktop and migration to alternatives like KDE or XFCE. These two factors indicate that GNOME is not in a healthy situation and is beginning to decline in relevance. That's all. The GNOME 2 and community issues are issues that need to be addressed. On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 20:17 +0000, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > hi; > > On 5 February 2014 20:03, Alexander GS <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's 2014 and not 1999. > > this is pretty much the only thing that you and I agree on. sadly, > from different angles. > > > GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk > > becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community. > > so your idea, which would reduce fragmentation by reincorporating > other projects, is to go back at doing exactly what we were doing > before? > > I hope you can see the cognitive dissonance hidden in this whole > thing, especially the four basic issues that your idea does not take > into consideration. > > in short: "let's go back doing what GNOME 2.x did (which does not take > into consideration that doing so proved to be unsustainable to the > point that the people that were doing it decided), and MATE and > Cinnamon will cease to exist (which doesn't take into consideration > the fact that both MATE and Cinnamon *want* to do something of their > own while starting off from the GNOME code base, and that > reintegration at this point would mean abandonment), and at the same > time we can do experimentations (i.e. the current GNOME 3.x) on the > side (which does not take into consideration the fact that the people > that do work on GNOME already decided what to work on years ago)". on > top of this, you're assuming that the Foundation can dictate the > technological direction of the project, or that it can allocate > resources — both assumptions being unfounded in reality. > > I'm sorry you don't like the direction of GNOME. this does not mean > you get to decide where the project should go just because you don't > like it. > > ciao, > Emmanuele. > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
