Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 12:27 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: 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. If somebody would like to write up a couple paragraphs about this, I'll do the markup and such and put it into the help. It's a useful topic, I think. -- Shaun -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.com wrote: My understanding was that GNOME 3.0 was simply not targeting these users, and that the expectation was that Fallback/Classic mode would be ready for such users in a forthcoming release. To me, it makes sense for GNOME to first focus on the more common-case GNOME users for the GNOME 3.0 release (e.g. desktop/laptop/notebook users). By the time GNOME 3.x starts being released in a supported fashion by major distros, I am sure the Fallback/Classic mode issues will be resolved. GNOME 3 was designed as a general purpose desktop, appropriate for all the things that GNOME 2 was appropriate for. It should work very well for sysadmins and other enterprise roles, better than GNOME 2, in fact. snip What we do want is to give the impression that this is where enterprise desktops should go. Because ease of use, good design means less training, and in the end less problem tickets. (which means that someone of should be hitting help desk conferences. :-) I couldn't agree more. This is really important. To many people, GNOME 3 might seem like it is just for netbooks or home users. We need to dispel that impression. One thing that we can do is emphasise productivity in our marketing materials. I did a bad job at this when I wrote the gnome3.org content, and I've been meaning to update it for a while. The message is already present in the release notes, though. The other thing we could do - and this is something I'd really like to see - is have a testimonials page for gnome3.org. Does anybody fancy taking this on? Any other ideas? Best, Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Allan: Note that if sysadmins feel that we are going to give up on them, they may start looking into alternatives. We need to be clear that we want them to stick to 2.x/classic for now and that we are going to think about them in future releases. Sysadmins in general, or sysadmins in the contexts that Brian wrote about? I'm unaware of plans to tackle either of these... This issue only affects sysadmins who might want users to use Fallback or Classic mode. Such environments are likely only a small percentage of GNOME users. While definitely a minority, these users are important since they tend to be businesses, educational facilities, government institutions, important customers of distros that ship GNOME, etc. These are the sorts of users who tend to do things like run multi-user servers. Important users, but not the sorts of users who are going to be rushing to run bleeding edge software anyway. These users instead tend to run stable and supported releases. My understanding was that GNOME 3.0 was simply not targeting these users, and that the expectation was that Fallback/Classic mode would be ready for such users in a forthcoming release. To me, it makes sense for GNOME to first focus on the more common-case GNOME users for the GNOME 3.0 release (e.g. desktop/laptop/notebook users). By the time GNOME 3.x starts being released in a supported fashion by major distros, I am sure the Fallback/Classic mode issues will be resolved. I would not think it should be so controversial to just make this clear to users, make sure we set expectations honestly, and avoid confusion. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.comwrote: My understanding was that GNOME 3.0 was simply not targeting these users, and that the expectation was that Fallback/Classic mode would be ready for such users in a forthcoming release. To me, it makes sense for GNOME to first focus on the more common-case GNOME users for the GNOME 3.0 release (e.g. desktop/laptop/notebook users). By the time GNOME 3.x starts being released in a supported fashion by major distros, I am sure the Fallback/Classic mode issues will be resolved. No wise enterprise sysadmin would move to a dot oh release especially something like this one which changes the user experience so dramatically. There is training issues, performance issues, documentation. It will be at least two releases before enterprise people look at this stuff. Certainly that is what I would be doing. It's a pile of work to do that kind of labor and some still won't move until their support vendor decides to say they are ending support. What we do want is to give the impression that this is where enterprise desktops should go. Because ease of use, good design means less training, and in the end less problem tickets. (which means that someone of should be hitting help desk conferences. :-) I would not think it should be so controversial to just make this clear to users, make sure we set expectations honestly, and avoid confusion. It shouldn't be, but we need to keep their use models in mind and work towards accommodating them if we can. That is after all where a lot of our distros make their money and money is good. sri -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 11:37 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: Let's not get into arguments over this. I think it is a little late to be talking about running GNOME 3/Shell over VNC and virtual appliances. I don't think anyone is talking about fixing it. We are talking about messaging. We have a release in less than 3 weeks. If someone is interested in this problem and interested in working on this messaging then please step up and volunteer. I believe it is a hole, but right now we have resources committed to the release. Fine. Here is my suggestion; GNOME 3 RELEASE NOTES GO HERE * PRETTY LIST OF FEATURES * I MAKE LIFE EASY * SHINY SCREENSHOTS FOOTNOTES START HERE Known Issues: * The GNOME 3 shell experience does not work over VNC or when the desktop is run in a virtualised environment. In this situation you will receive the GNOME 3 fallback experience* THE END * assuming that GNOME 3 fallback has been explained or defined earlier in the release notes. If it has not, then perhaps that needs to be fixed Now, please don't wilfully miss my point because I might have called things by the slightly incorrect name. I started this thread by giving an example of a whole group of people who have no idea what G3 vs GS vs Fallback was. If my attempt at an errata in the footnotes was not sufficient to illuminate things for these people then please help come up with something better. John -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hey John, John Stowers wrote: Fine. Here is my suggestion; GNOME 3 RELEASE NOTES GO HERE * PRETTY LIST OF FEATURES * I MAKE LIFE EASY * SHINY SCREENSHOTS FOOTNOTES START HERE Known Issues: * The GNOME 3 shell experience does not work over VNC or when the desktop is run in a virtualised environment. In this situation you will receive the GNOME 3 fallback experience* THE END * assuming that GNOME 3 fallback has been explained or defined earlier in the release notes. If it has not, then perhaps that needs to be fixed Thanks for the suggestion. :) I have to say, I'm extremely hesitant to have anything like 'known issues' or 'not recommend' in the release notes. This document will be quoted by the press and will seed many of the articles and news stories about the release. Those in the press could (and probably would) pick up these kind of statements and make stories out of them. That's not something we want. What we do have in the release notes is a statement which points out the hardware acceleration requirement for 'the full GNOME 3 experience', however. That mentions fallback mode. Fallback and hardware acceleration also feature in the gnome3.org FAQ, and we can add entries there for the virtual machine/VNC issues. What is the potential damage of not mentioning VNC or virtual machines in the release notes? I don't foresee a 'what no VNC?' uproar on the horizon (I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have VNC support - I'm just thinking about the marketing). Am I missing something? Best, Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hi, Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 13:16, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org 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 dne...@gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Brian Cameron wrote: Allan: On 03/18/11 04:28 AM, Allan Day wrote: The message, as Olav has already pointed out, is that it is 'fallback', not 'classic' GNOME. It's what you get if you are unlucky enough not to be able to run the full GNOME 3 desktop. It isn't intended as something that users choose to use. (There is a switch in the control center that lets you force the fallback mode, however.) I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose 'fallback' mode. For example, when accessing a remote machine via XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs better - especially if latency is high. If my home directory is shared between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my local machine, but use fallback GNOME when I log into remote machines. I get your point that for the average or typical user, it probably does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode. However, there will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes sense for people to use it. Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not support these sorts of use cases anymore. In terms of marketing, I'm not sure it makes sense to be targeting these kinds of users right now. In the longer term, it would be useful to see wider discussion about GNOME's approach to these kinds of technical environments. Best wishes, Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hello Allan, I'm actually quite worried about this use case and the impact that 3.0 can have on them. Yes, corporate desktop is not the primary target for GNOME 3.0, but it is our largest install base by a long shot (schools, corporations, public entities, universities...). I think there's some thinking to do in terms of messaging in this specific topic to not scare these users away. Note that if sysadmins feel that we are going to give up on them, they may start looking into alternatives. We need to be clear that we want them to stick to 2.x/classic for now and that we are going to think about them in future releases. My 2 cents, Alberto 2011/3/21 Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com: Brian Cameron wrote: Allan: On 03/18/11 04:28 AM, Allan Day wrote: The message, as Olav has already pointed out, is that it is 'fallback', not 'classic' GNOME. It's what you get if you are unlucky enough not to be able to run the full GNOME 3 desktop. It isn't intended as something that users choose to use. (There is a switch in the control center that lets you force the fallback mode, however.) I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose 'fallback' mode. For example, when accessing a remote machine via XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs better - especially if latency is high. If my home directory is shared between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my local machine, but use fallback GNOME when I log into remote machines. I get your point that for the average or typical user, it probably does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode. However, there will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes sense for people to use it. Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not support these sorts of use cases anymore. In terms of marketing, I'm not sure it makes sense to be targeting these kinds of users right now. In the longer term, it would be useful to see wider discussion about GNOME's approach to these kinds of technical environments. Best wishes, Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Alberto Ruiz wrote: Hello Allan, I'm actually quite worried about this use case and the impact that 3.0 can have on them. Yes, corporate desktop is not the primary target for GNOME 3.0, but it is our largest install base by a long shot (schools, corporations, public entities, universities...). I think there's some thinking to do in terms of messaging in this specific topic to not scare these users away. Do you have any suggestions for our marketing materials in this respect? It would be great if you could look over the materials that are currently in production. I'll send you them. Note that if sysadmins feel that we are going to give up on them, they may start looking into alternatives. We need to be clear that we want them to stick to 2.x/classic for now and that we are going to think about them in future releases. Sysadmins in general, or sysadmins in the contexts that Brian wrote about? I'm unaware of plans to tackle either of these... Allan -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hello Allan, Do you have any suggestions for our marketing materials in this respect? It would be great if you could look over the materials that are currently in production. I'll send you them. Please do! Sysadmins in general, or sysadmins in the contexts that Brian wrote about? I'm unaware of plans to tackle either of these... The large deployment sysadmins, basically the users of the distros providing corporate desktop (such as RHEL/Solaris/SLED), Dave Richards from PGO is probably a good example of the type I'm thiking about. I'm unaware of any plans myself as well, and I am not sure who is going to work on this. It might be worth having a chat with the guys taking care of these distros. -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hi, Allan Day wrote: Brian Cameron wrote: I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose 'fallback' mode. For example, when accessing a remote machine via XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs better - especially if latency is high. If my home directory is shared between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my local machine, but use fallback GNOME when I log into remote machines. I get your point that for the average or typical user, it probably does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode. However, there will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes sense for people to use it. Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not support these sorts of use cases anymore. In terms of marketing, I'm not sure it makes sense to be targeting these kinds of users right now. In the longer term, it would be useful to see wider discussion about GNOME's approach to these kinds of technical environments. I buy that, but I think it's important that we have a who is GNOME 3 *not* for (yet) which covers audiences for whom GNOME 3 is not appropriate. And we need to have a story for them - such as we recommend you stick with GNOME 2.32 for another 6 months, or whatever. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:15:26AM +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: The large deployment sysadmins, basically the users of the distros providing corporate desktop (such as RHEL/Solaris/SLED), Dave Richards from PGO is probably a good example of the type I'm thiking about. I'm unaware of any plans myself as well, and I am not sure who is going to work on this. It might be worth having a chat with the guys taking care of these distros. Now that you mention Dave Richards, maybe get a quote from him (if possible)? His thoughts on 3.0 and what he's planning to do. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:15, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: In terms of marketing, I'm not sure it makes sense to be targeting these kinds of users right now. In the longer term, it would be useful to see wider discussion about GNOME's approach to these kinds of technical environments. I buy that, but I think it's important that we have a who is GNOME 3 *not* for (yet) which covers audiences for whom GNOME 3 is not appropriate. And we need to have a story for them - such as we recommend you stick with GNOME 2.32 for another 6 months, or whatever. There are no Enterprise distributions due out until at least the GNOME 3.4 time frame so please let's focus on what we actually need to focus on right now: the 3.0 launch. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:15, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: I buy that, but I think it's important that we have a who is GNOME 3 *not* for (yet) which covers audiences for whom GNOME 3 is not appropriate. And we need to have a story for them - such as we recommend you stick with GNOME 2.32 for another 6 months, or whatever. There are no Enterprise distributions due out until at least the GNOME 3.4 time frame so please let's focus on what we actually need to focus on right now: the 3.0 launch. shrug Not my call - I guess Allan Sumana, in collaboration with the board, are fixing priorities for the next 2-3 weeks. The whole fall-back messaging in particular the absence of a short list of places where this is known not to be appropriate seems to me to be setting us up for an entirely avoidable post-release shit-storm... but like I said, it's not my call. Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
For side note I wanted to add that I'm very happy that fallback/legacy mode exists. If we are looking for actual GNOME 3 adaption, this is a must, because people won't jump to GNOME 3 stright away. They will move to it gradually. Cheers and thanks everyone for this superb release! Peter. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:33, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: Jason D. Clinton wrote: shrug Not my call - I guess Allan Sumana, in collaboration with the board, are fixing priorities for the next 2-3 weeks. What does the Board have to do with the Marketing Team? Allan and Sumana, as members of the Marketing Team, are certainly good decision makers but the Board should not be doing any top-down management and I certainly hope that the Board is not putting Allan and Sumana in the difficult position of having to choose between what they know is the right thing to do and what their contract provider is asking that they do. I think that they are both qualified enough to stand on their own without being micromanaged. Further, I hope that any such discussions are transparent and exclusively on this mailing list. The whole fall-back messaging in particular the absence of a short list of places where this is known not to be appropriate seems to me to be setting us up for an entirely avoidable post-release shit-storm... but like I said, it's not my call. What do you mean, Not to be appropriate? Fallback will work everywhere that GNOME 2.x has worked and any sysadmin crazy enough to deploy an enterprise desktop roll-out of a non-Enterprise distribution already has the tools they need to force Fallback Mode if they are so inclined. I don't see why it's even remotely relevant to the release of 3.0. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hi, Jason D. Clinton wrote: What does the Board have to do with the Marketing Team? Allan and Sumana, as members of the Marketing Team, are certainly good decision makers but the Board should not be doing any top-down management and I certainly hope that the Board is not putting Allan and Sumana in the difficult position of having to choose between what they know is the right thing to do and what their contract provider is asking that they do. I think that they are both qualified enough to stand on their own without being micromanaged. Further, I hope that any such discussions are transparent and exclusively on this mailing list. It appears you're happy telling people what to concentrate on, all I'm saying is that I'm not. But I bet that this will be an issue, and it's one we can handle easily with a tiny bit of foresight. The whole fall-back messaging in particular the absence of a short list of places where this is known not to be appropriate seems to me to be setting us up for an entirely avoidable post-release shit-storm... but like I said, it's not my call. What do you mean, Not to be appropriate? GNOME 3 is not appropriate, apparently, over VNC, and over thin clients (at least, this is what I've taken away from this thread). So we need to say GNOME 3 won't work well in these situations, and since the GNOME 3 fall-back is not a full-featured GNOME desktop, you might want to stick with GNOME 2.32 if you're in this situation. Fallback will work everywhere that GNOME 2.x has worked and any sysadmin crazy enough to deploy an enterprise desktop roll-out of a non-Enterprise distribution already has the tools they need to force Fallback Mode if they are so inclined. I don't see why it's even remotely relevant to the release of 3.0. Do you think no-one will bring this up? Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 13:16, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org 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. 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.) The whole fall-back messaging in particular the absence of a short list of places where this is known not to be appropriate seems to me to be setting us up for an entirely avoidable post-release shit-storm... but like I said, it's not my call. What do you mean, Not to be appropriate? GNOME 3 is not appropriate, apparently, over VNC, and over thin clients (at least, this is what I've taken away from this thread). So we need to say GNOME 3 won't work well in these situations, and since the GNOME 3 fall-back is not a full-featured GNOME desktop, you might want to stick with GNOME 2.32 if you're in this situation. 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. Fallback will work everywhere that GNOME 2.x has worked and any sysadmin crazy enough to deploy an enterprise desktop roll-out of a non-Enterprise distribution already has the tools they need to force Fallback Mode if they are so inclined. I don't see why it's even remotely relevant to the release of 3.0. Do you think no-one will bring this up? Bring what up? Fallback Mode is part of GNOME 3. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Let's not get into arguments over this. I think it is a little late to be talking about running GNOME 3/Shell over VNC and virtual appliances. We have a release in less than 3 weeks. If someone is interested in this problem and interested in working on this messaging then please step up and volunteer. I believe it is a hole, but right now we have resources committed to the release. Definitely though, after the release we need to think about: a) improving shell experience on VMware/VirtualBox/KVM whatever. That's something we can control.. If we can improve 3D on virtual machine that's just good for everyone and we can work on that after the release. b) I've been re-thinking the VNC issue, and I think that this doesn't matter too much. Most enterprise environments (who I think use VNC the most) want a stable environment, and GNOME 3 is a large enough change that it will require a lot longer for them to evaluate whether to bring it in. Training, documentation all comes into play in these corporate environments. But we will need to come up with an answer for this scenario over time. Hope that makes sense. So, let's drop the issue for now unless someone wants to volunteer doing it and which case.. talk to us on #marketing, I can help. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.comwrote: Allan: On 03/18/11 04:28 AM, Allan Day wrote: The message, as Olav has already pointed out, is that it is 'fallback', not 'classic' GNOME. It's what you get if you are unlucky enough not to be able to run the full GNOME 3 desktop. It isn't intended as something that users choose to use. (There is a switch in the control center that lets you force the fallback mode, however.) I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose 'fallback' mode. For example, when accessing a remote machine via XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs better - especially if latency is high. If my home directory is shared between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my local machine, but use fallback GNOME when I log into remote machines. I get your point that for the average or typical user, it probably does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode. However, there will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes sense for people to use it. Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not support these sorts of use cases anymore. My employer does not have Linux desktops.. they instead provide VNC with fvwm2 or some other light weight window manager in order to work in their linux environment. Likely they might start moving to virtual machines as well. In fact, my work model is to use a virtual machines for Window on a Linux host but for most other people it'll likely be the other way around. I can't help but think that we are missing out on a large number of corporate users, amazon ec2 users, etc when we do not have a strategy to address remote computing; popular among business IT due to cost saving benefits. sri -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
My employer does not have Linux desktops.. they instead provide VNC with fvwm2 or some other light weight window manager in order to work in their linux environment. Likely they might start moving to virtual machines as well. In fact, my work model is to use a virtual machines for Window on a Linux host but for most other people it'll likely be the other way around. As Allan said earlier, it would be good to understand the technical reasons stopping g-s from running in virtualbox, vmware, etc. Is this something that could ever be fixed for examples. John -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:13 PM, John Stowers john.stowers.li...@gmail.comwrote: My employer does not have Linux desktops.. they instead provide VNC with fvwm2 or some other light weight window manager in order to work in their linux environment. Likely they might start moving to virtual machines as well. In fact, my work model is to use a virtual machines for Window on a Linux host but for most other people it'll likely be the other way around. As Allan said earlier, it would be good to understand the technical reasons stopping g-s from running in virtualbox, vmware, etc. I agree.. it's just that it is not a space we control and we don't know how long it will take for something like that to be resolved.. Definitely we should be looking to make sure that wherever compiz can run, we should run, and run better. The VNC case though is still up in the air though.. fallback should work with that well. Is this something that could ever be fixed for examples. Dunno? sri -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Alberto Ruiz wrote: Then again, I think we should keep the fallback mode as close to the 2.x look as possible tbh to avoid confusion. The confusion lies in the fact that the fallback mode is clearly made from GNOME 2 components. It would have been clearer if it were more divorced from the previous desktop. That said, fallback isn't *exactly* the same as GNOME 2.x. The message, as Olav has already pointed out, is that it is 'fallback', not 'classic' GNOME. It's what you get if you are unlucky enough not to be able to run the full GNOME 3 desktop. It isn't intended as something that users choose to use. (There is a switch in the control center that lets you force the fallback mode, however.) Maybe showing a startup splash explaining it the first time it falls back. There is one. It has a pretty picture of a sad computer, yearning for more GNOME 3 goodness. I don't particularly want to be talking about fallback in our marketing except for pointing out that it exists and is fine... thoughts? Do we need a warning somewhere about using VMs? Maybe on the try it page [1]? Allan [1] http://www.gnome3.org/tryit.html -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM, John Stowers john.stowers.li...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, This morning I saw this - http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/classic-gnome-3-beta-2-video-no-shell.html From the comments I conclude that people have no idea what the classic/fallback desktop is and how it relates to G3. Another conclusion could be; that humanity is doomed. Perhaps the marketing team could address the first point. Comments seem to refer to the whole thing as ugly. I don't have fallback so I can't really judge what shape it is in. One compalined that they could move the panels around or anything like that. Does the live cd have fallback working? I suppose I could take a look at it.. Yes, it has. -- Frederic Crozat -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:07:39PM +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: Then again, I think we should keep the fallback mode as close to the 2.x look as possible tbh to avoid confusion. Maybe showing a startup splash explaining it the first time it falls back. It is called fallback. There is a bug about making it look as close as possible to the gnome-shell. It won't look like 2.x as that is not the purpose. Some dialog is planned IIRC. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Fallback / Classic Mode
Hi All, This morning I saw this - http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/classic-gnome-3-beta-2-video-no-shell.html From the comments I conclude that people have no idea what the classic/fallback desktop is and how it relates to G3. Another conclusion could be; that humanity is doomed. Perhaps the marketing team could address the first point. John -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
Hey John, This is a sore point indeed, GNOME Shell won't run on VirtualBox (the only cross-platform/user-friendly/ opensource desktop virtualization app), same for KVM (I don't know what's the state for VMWare though). This really troubles me, a lot of people these days (certainly a lot of Mac guys) run Linux on a VM, at the same time, the Unity guys have managed to get their stuff running on top of the VirtualBox 3D driver. I do not know what is going on at the technical side (probably clutter requiring OpenGL extensions VirtualBox doesn't implement), but certainly something worth investigating with the clutter guys. Then again, I think we should keep the fallback mode as close to the 2.x look as possible tbh to avoid confusion. Maybe showing a startup splash explaining it the first time it falls back. My 2cents 2011/3/16 John Stowers john.stowers.li...@gmail.com: Hi All, This morning I saw this - http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/classic-gnome-3-beta-2-video-no-shell.html From the comments I conclude that people have no idea what the classic/fallback desktop is and how it relates to G3. Another conclusion could be; that humanity is doomed. Perhaps the marketing team could address the first point. John -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Fallback / Classic Mode
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM, John Stowers john.stowers.li...@gmail.comwrote: Hi All, This morning I saw this - http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/classic-gnome-3-beta-2-video-no-shell.html From the comments I conclude that people have no idea what the classic/fallback desktop is and how it relates to G3. Another conclusion could be; that humanity is doomed. Perhaps the marketing team could address the first point. Comments seem to refer to the whole thing as ugly. I don't have fallback so I can't really judge what shape it is in. One compalined that they could move the panels around or anything like that. Does the live cd have fallback working? I suppose I could take a look at it.. sri -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
