One of the things that makes open-source projects sustainable is corporate involvement and sponsorship. Due to the success of Chrome OS and Android in the corporate and education market and the transition of many institutions to open-source technologies there's a huge opportunity for a coherent and standardized Linux desktop workstation.
One of the major goals of the GNOME Meta-Desktop project was a commercially oriented and managed GNOME 2 sub-project involving companies like IBM, Intel, Red Hat, and many others. Could such a project be feasible in the new structure? On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:08 -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Alexander GS <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > I think what would be appropriate is to actually have these projects > join the GNOME Foundation as official projects. > > Cinnamon, Elementary OS, Mate, and others all depend on GNOME > upstream. Without GNOME, they cannot survive. I consider these core > parts things like dbus(kdbus?), GTK+, GLib, GStreamer, GOBject and so > forth. GNOME Foundation will help provide some amount of money > towards hackfests, infrastructure that help these projects with the > recognition that helping them also helps them improve our upstream. > > I expect these projects to participate in GNOME core upstream projects > in return. GNOME gets additional voices and resources and hopefully > evolve a structure that we can all work together implementing our > unique projects. Unification will be our strength. Diversity will > give us robustness in the platform. > > Together, we would leverage each other and our ideas and make a very > healthy eco-system. GNOME Foundation gets new voices, and maybe even > potential new board members as well with different perspectives. > > > sri > > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
