Hi, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 13:16, Dave Neary <[email protected]> wrote: >> It appears you're happy telling people what to concentrate on, all I'm >> saying is that I'm not. > > I would appreciate it if you would avoid ascribing me to certain > positions that I am not taking.
I shouldn't have reacted provocatively. I took your initial response to mean "don't waste your time on this". Which, obviously, is telling me what I should spend time on. >> But I bet that this will be an issue, and it's >> one we can handle easily with a tiny bit of foresight. > > There is no issue because we planned for a Fallback Mode in 3.0 from > the beginning and it is implemented (modulo some bugs that need to be > squashed before release.) Surely you can accept that there is an image formed in the mind of people about GNOME 3, and we need to handle the expectations people have about the release? > GNOME 3 is *not* GNOME Shell. I'm disheartened that you are this > misinformed as a regular reader of this mailing list and a blogger on > Planet GNOME. Frankly, I don't know what else we could have done to > better inform you but if you have a suggestion as to how it is that > you came to be so misguided and what we could have done to reach out > to you earlier, that would certainly help this marketing process. Thank you for the lesson. As a "misinformed", "misguided" contributor, I'm trying hard not to get too upset with your reaction. I hope you will react differentlyt post-release with misinformed & misguided users & press. In the minds of a lot of people (press and GNOME hackers, and by proxy, future users), GNOME 3 is very much the user experience defined by GNOME Shell. And, while I don't have any data to back this up, I'd bet that people are expecting "GNOME 3 fall-back mode" to be more or less equivalent to GNOME 2. So since (a) in some situations using GNOME 3 in "normal" mode (with GNOME Shell) is not appropriate, and (b) GNOME fall-back does not provide the same user experience as GNOME 2, we risk disappointing some people doubly, if we do not prepare ourselves to manage these expectations. That means, IMHO, figuring out some situations when it's inappropriate to run GNOME Shell, documenting how to manually switch to fall-back mode if, for example, your card is detected as being Shell capable, but runs slowly (I had this experience on one SiS chipset on a netbook), and also managing people's expectations about GNOME Fallback's feature set. I hope I've managed to clear up any confusion about my position, and my interests in holding that position. The sad thing is that we've spent longer arguing about this than it would have taken to document the few situations where using Shell is not appropriate, and making recommendations to users as to what we suggest they do in these situations. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [email protected] -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
