On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:51 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 15:49 +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
Hello! You may remember me as the bloke that proposed the Déjà Dup
backup tool as a GNOME module a little back, right as modules were
being reorganized.
I've been
On 18 May 2011 13:21, Michael Terry m...@mterry.name wrote:
2) I'll move my mailing list to GNOME. That seems rather painless and
seems to make it easier for GNOME people. It's super low traffic, so
doesn't really matter. But I encourage people to make it high
traffic.
Just an overdue
Hi!
If they were fully integrated into gnome.org bugzilla well enough that
the project was a first-class citizen, and integrated into gnome.org
git well enough that translators could work in their usual way ...
would there be any fragmentation problems?
The question is highly hypothetical as
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
Dave Neary wrote:
snip
Leaving aside because that's the way it is as a reason for a second,
what are the potential issues we'd have using Launchpad?
* Bug reporters would have to have an easy way to report bugs against
Dave Neary wrote:
snip
Leaving aside because that's the way it is as a reason for a second,
what are the potential issues we'd have using Launchpad?
* Bug reporters would have to have an easy way to report bugs against
Deja Dup through gnome.org
* GNOME developers would need to reassign
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:21 -0400, Michael Terry wrote:
And also, does being in git imply that the translation team would
automatically consider the module?
yes, you will start getting translations as soon as it's there. It
happened to me to several modules
On 19 May 2011 04:45, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
These changes seem like good ones.
Heh, well of course you think so. :)
Though, I've gotten bad feedback about the feasibility of a round-trip
bzr-git-bzr conversion. I may start small with just a git mirror.
But moving bugs out of
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 09:22:40AM -0400, Michael Terry wrote:
Of course I think it's possible, but Olav made it clear that the issue
was settled law. Assuming it's not, I see at least a couple options:
This is just the discussion period, not decision. At the moment, we want
it on GNOME infra.
On 19 May 2011 09:22, Michael Terry m...@mterry.name wrote:
LP has this cool feature to synchronize comments and such
between a bug in LP and a bug elsewhere. It's turned off for b.g.o,
but it may be possible that it could be turned on per-module. I'd
have to look into it.
Not possible
Hi,
Michael Terry wrote:
Though, I've gotten bad feedback about the feasibility of a round-trip
bzr-git-bzr conversion. I may start small with just a git mirror.
Just to provide some historical context: I recall one GNOME developer
expressing his annoyance at having to sync his private git
It seems discussion died down around this, which means the status quo
of just a GNOME external app will prevail.
But I'm going to go ahead and take some steps to increase potential
cooperation between Deja Dup and GNOME, for those that are interested:
1) I'll try to stay more on top of the
Am 18.05.2011 19:21, schrieb Michael Terry:
And also, does being in git imply that the translation team would
automatically consider the module?
Not automatically, you have to be added[1] to l10n.gnome.org
[1]:
On 14 May 2011 00:32, Michael Terry m...@mterry.name wrote:
Hrm. I do have a need to clean up the jhbuild sets. I also know that
older modulesets should be pointing at the branches of DD, not trunk.
I will fix that soon.
Just FYI, I fixed up the modulesets. Now librsync is built for
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:55 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:32 +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
So as the Deja Dup maintainer, life will go on when you drop support.
Worst case, I can just make the panel a dialog.
But dropping the existing API feels like a frustrating
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 11:31 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:55 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:32 +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
So as the Deja Dup maintainer, life will go on when you drop support.
Worst case, I can just make the panel a dialog.
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 22:58 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only polished panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI specialists
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.26 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to
complain here.
You have misinterpreted my words; It wasn't a complain for that specific
events, it was an example (but I suppose we could cite/find
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 12:58 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.26 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to
complain here.
You have misinterpreted my words; It wasn't a complain for that specific
Sergey Udaltsov [2011-05-12 20:45 +0100]:
Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
about free software). Also, that is a very effective
In a UDS session this week about this control center issue, one
discussed idea was a hard-coded (in source) whitelist or brightlist.
To be clear, a brightlist would be a set of plugins that appear at the
top as part of the OS and there's some other section where
everything else goes. A whitelist
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
Everyone wins, with exceedingly little technical effort. What do the
g-c-c maintainers feel about that?
So your suggestion is to still have new panels?
The purpose of no external API is not to make it more difficult, but to
On 12 May 2011 20:52, Sergey Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
For something like this, I have a feeling we may only get one chance. If
you don't allow any differentiation on top of GNOME, there is at least
one distribution that will just do preferences differently ignore
On 12 May 2011 17:05, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
I presume you'd be happy for Deja Dup to become a GNOME Control Center
panel?
Depends on what you mean. I'm happy for Deja Dup to be shown as a
panel in the control center. But it sounds like you're asking about
actually putting it in
On 13 May 2011 10:31, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
So your suggestion is to still have new panels?
Depending on whether you wanted to allow 3rd party panels, you could
use a brightlist or a whitelist. But yes, a public API coupled with a
whitelist to allow only design-approved external
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:47:52AM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
I guess the questions like that will be discussed again and again. The
interaction between GNOME and distros is a very complex matter. On
Loads of distribution people are involved within GNOME. The only
problems occur with
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:46:51AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
Right. And this proposal was designed to allow each design team to
decide their own OS's experience easily by patching the whitelist.
The plan to drop the API adds a larger technical barrier that appears
artificial.
AFAIK, the
On 13 May 2011 09:49, Sergey Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
capplet only supports clone) and are very pleased that we can drop in
new capplets because it installs the library headers...
Thanks, Ross, for illustrating the real downstream POV. Do I understand it
right that gnome3
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:38:09AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
So the big question to GNOME is how much do ya'll want to avoid the
extra step of such collaboration for Features you consider part of
your core? Is that a hard-blocker? Who gets to decide if it is?
I'm theoretically open to
Distribution
differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged.
It is not for gnome to decide. See the messages from Ross. Differences are
inevitable. Let's embrace differences, let's minimise patches. Let's be
friendly to downstream.
Anyway, since distros are patching in their capplets -
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 00.51 -0400, William Jon McCann ha
scritto:
How about: raison d'être. What is our mission, what is our reason for
existing? Is it to provide a gummy base for others to adapt, modify,
and differentiate?
No.
Your own vision of open source is totally
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
So IMHO choosing a priori what people can do and what people can't do
is... well, censorship, sorry. Matthias said maintaining meaningful
boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not. Of course this is a
way to maintain a
On 13 May 2011 11:53, Gendre Sebastien ko...@romandie.com wrote:
I'm agree with Luca: It would be better if split Déjà Dup with Gnome
Backup. Also, we can have:
- Gnome Backup as a G-C-C panel for Gnome Desktop.
- Déjà Dup as a GTK+ Application for non-Gnome Desktop, ex for XFCE.
One minor
Hi Michael,
Thanks for all of this. Let me reiterate that I *really* want to see
Deja Dup in 3.2. We just need to figure out how to make it work.
Michael Terry wrote:
On 12 May 2011 17:05, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
I presume you'd be happy for Deja Dup to become a GNOME Control
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
We do have a few exceptions at the moment, mostly in cross desktop
services stuff, of core components hosted elsewhere, from a quick
look at jhbuild core moduleset we have NetworkManager and
accountsservice on freedesktop,
On 13 May 2011 12:28, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you be willing to use GNOME Bugzilla?
That specifically would be the hardest part of an infrastructure move.
Some important downstreams (Ubuntu and flavors) and my sister project
Duplicity are all in LP. So it's very easy to
Michael Terry wrote:
On 13 May 2011 12:28, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you be willing to use GNOME Bugzilla?
That specifically would be the hardest part of an infrastructure move.
Some important downstreams (Ubuntu and flavors) and my sister project
Duplicity are all in LP.
least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:36:41PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
Let's not go into this type of yes/no discussion any further.
Seems continuing this discussion on
Right. All I asked from the start is documenting the current vision.
Seems continuing this discussion on desktop-devel-list is not going to
change anyones mind
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:28:25AM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
Distribution
differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged.
It is not for gnome to decide. See the messages from Ross. Differences are
inevitable. Let's embrace differences, let's minimise patches. Let's be
friendly
On 2011-05-13 at 12:36, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
the most important release of the past 5 years of Gnome being
successful?
what is your metric of success for the previous
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 12.16 +0200, Olav Vitters ha scritto:
The control-center maintainers made a quick API for GNOME 3.0 only.
Saying the removal is censorship?
Of course not a real world censorship, but something that resembles it.
System Settings is a place that can be useful to
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 12:25 +0200, Michael Terry a écrit :
On 13 May 2011 11:53, Gendre Sebastien ko...@romandie.com wrote:
I'm agree with Luca: It would be better if split Déjà Dup with Gnome
Backup. Also, we can have:
- Gnome Backup as a G-C-C panel for Gnome Desktop.
- Déjà Dup as
I don't see this happening. Are you talking about GNOME 3 or GNOME 2.x
here?
Gnome3, since gnome2 did not have the goal to define the final experience.
And it was more open.
The whole design part is new. My view is that we're way more friendly to
do things for downstream.
What kind of
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 03:26:00PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
That's what you want. Do distros want the same? Do 3rd party appdevs want
the same? Or do you just not care?
To all: This thread is getting too heated and personal for me to feel
comfortable to try and find ways to continue. So
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 15:49 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov a écrit :
If that is a bad excuse for the heated discussion, at least that
explains why it is hot.
If I summarize the choice of Gnome Dev about panel by an exemple: The
choice of operating system to boot at startup. They don't want to see a
On 13 May 2011 13:01, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
There are good reasons for wanting to have Deja Dup on GNOME Bugzilla, I
think. I can imagine myself wanting to CC other GNOME contributors on
Deja Dup bugs. I can also imagine bugs being punted between Deja Dup and
other GNOME
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 17:28 +0200, Gendre Sebastien a écrit :
And if we more summarize: They don't want to have too much of redundant
panels for same features and with different UI logic. They prefer to
have 1 panel with some different back-end.
I don't think this way is bad.
It is a
Luca Ferretti wrote:
snip
Luca, I don't want to be rude, but you, Sergey, David, Emmanuele, and
everyone else who has contributed multiple times to this thread in the
past 24 hours have had your say, you've been heard. You're now just
repeating yourself.
Please stop polluting my in-box. As
2011/5/13 Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org:
Bonus question: are you sure this all work happens upstream can lead
to better and faster solutions?
I forgot a little example for this: 3 years ago I wrote
a trivial patch to add a Search tool selector in Preferred Application
preference tool. Start
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:28, Gendre Sebastien ko...@romandie.com wrote:
If I summarize the choice of Gnome Dev about panel by an exemple: The
choice of operating system to boot at startup. They don't want to see a
panel for manage Grub, a panel to manage Lilo, a panel to manage EFI,
etc. But
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 18:44 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
2011/5/13 Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org:
Bonus question: are you sure this all work happens upstream can lead
to better and faster solutions?
I forgot a little example for this: 3 years ago I wrote
a trivial patch to add a Search
Hi Michael,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Michael Terry m...@mterry.name wrote:
For the next major version (20.0), I've done a redesign aimed at
making it more invisible and appear as part of the OS. I've made it
live just as a control center panel and removed some branding to look
a bit
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 17:37 +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
So what does being a core module/Feature really buy here? (I mean,
benefits above and beyond the goodness of being on GNOME
infrastructure, which I could have without being a core module.) I
see the following, but I may have missed
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.42 +0200, Dave Neary ha scritto:
Please stop polluting my in-box. As many others have said, this thread
is going no-where, please just stop posting to it.
This could be true, we are discussing about ideas and visions and anyone
has his strong option. But
Il giorno Sat, 14/05/2011 alle 01.11 +0200, Luca Ferretti ha scritto:
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.42 +0200, Dave Neary ha scritto:
Please stop polluting my in-box. As many others have said, this thread
is going no-where, please just stop posting to it.
This could be true, we are
On 13 May 2011 21:50, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
Deja Dup could definitely qualify pretty easily as a Featured
Application; see:
https://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone/FeaturedApps
I had thought it was a Featured App already. When modulesets got
redesigned during my previous
Hi,
Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
I think I understand the system settings.. it is in fact system
settings, settings that change how your system behaves. It isn't
exactly a place for apps to put themselves.
And yet some apps can be considered part of the system - IM, back-up,
even things like
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 02:15 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
Il giorno mar, 10/05/2011 alle 20.51 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
http://live.gnome.org/DejaDup/Screenshots/Future for screenshots.
Déjà Dup 19.1, which includes those changes, is already in Fedora
Rawhide and will be in Ubuntu
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Terry wrote:
Hi, Allan. Thanks for your past and continuing help with design! :)
Answers below.
On 11 May 2011 11:33, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
This looks like an improvement on the UI that you
Sam Thursfield wrote:
... snip ...
* Branding - a part of the core should be branded as a part of GNOME 3,
and I don't think we'd want GNOME's new backup facility to visibly exist
outside of GNOME.
Could you clarify this one a little? On first read it sounds like if
Deja Dup becomes
On 11 May 2011 19:18, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at your proposal it seems that you are proposing Deja Dup for
inclusion in the GNOME core. You also seem to want it to be developed on
LP and for it to simultaneously exist as a standalone app, though. This
opens up some
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
considered part of the system - IM, back-up,
even things like email calendaring.
We're trying very hard to make this line stronger, for multiple
reasons. There are definitely still some blurry parts - Evolution is
an app but
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Ted Gould t...@gould.cx wrote:
Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
distributors of GNOME technologies? It seems to me the previous
position was to use the extension points instead of doing vendor
patches. Yet, without extension
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:37 +0200, Ted Gould wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 02:15 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
Il giorno mar, 10/05/2011 alle 20.51 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
http://live.gnome.org/DejaDup/Screenshots/Future for screenshots.
Déjà Dup 19.1, which includes those changes,
Le jeudi 12 mai 2011 à 13:48 +0200, Gendre Sebastien a écrit :
System-config-* are not only one: Lirc settings? Boot (Grub+Plymouth)
settings, etc.
Recently, I read in Phoronix that AMD want to add the support of all
these future CPU to the Free (as Freedom) bios/EFI nammed Coreboot. Some
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:21 +0200, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
Le jeudi 12 mai 2011 à 13:48 +0200, Gendre Sebastien a écrit :
System-config-* are not only one: Lirc settings? Boot (Grub+Plymouth)
settings, etc.
Recently, I read in Phoronix that AMD want to add the support of all
these
Hi,
Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:37 +0200, Ted Gould wrote:
Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
distributors of GNOME technologies? It seems to me the previous
position was to use the extension points instead of doing vendor
patches. Yet,
Hi,
Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
If we hard-code what GNOME supports into the design, when the needs
evolve then we need a centralised decision for each new need. Better to
provide a way for applications to integrate with system
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:44 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:37 +0200, Ted Gould wrote:
Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
distributors of GNOME technologies? It seems to me the previous
position was to use the
Michael Terry wrote:
On 11 May 2011 19:18, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at your proposal it seems that you are proposing Deja Dup for
inclusion in the GNOME core. You also seem to want it to be developed on
LP and for it to simultaneously exist as a standalone app, though.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi,
For something like this, I have a feeling we may only get one chance. If
you don't allow any differentiation on top of GNOME, there is at least
one distribution that will just do preferences differently ignore
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:02 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:44 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:37 +0200, Ted Gould wrote:
Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
distributors of GNOME
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:50 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
If we hard-code what GNOME supports into the design, when the needs
evolve then we need a centralised decision for each new need. Better to
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:34, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote:
That wouldn't be an issue if Deja
Dup were applying to be an application
There is no process of applying to be a GNOME application except
perhaps requesting infrastructure hosting--but that's available to
anyone, really.
Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
distributors of GNOME technologies? It seems to me the previous
position was to use the extension points instead of doing vendor
patches. Yet, without extension points it seems that vendor patches are
the only solution there.
For something like this, I have a feeling we may only get one chance. If
you don't allow any differentiation on top of GNOME, there is at least
one distribution that will just do preferences differently ignore
control-center. And I can imagine that future environments along the
lines of
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 14:45, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
about free
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 14:52, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
For something like this, I have a feeling we may only get one chance. If
you don't allow any differentiation on top of GNOME, there is at least
one distribution that will just do preferences differently ignore
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions
No, GNOME is not a supermarket. It's not a place where you go to get
your technology so you can put it together
No, GNOME is not a supermarket. It's not a place where you go to get
your technology so you can put it together in your own sandbox. This
might be inconvenient for downstreams (including my employer) but it
is what it is. The fact that you _can_ (easily) fork GNOME just
happens to be a
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
My whole point was that in the ideal world GNOME could be extensible
enough so that no _forking_ would be necessary. Extension modules, not
patches. That would be not a side effect of the license but the
Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
How would you distinguish...?
[1] : Except of course if some downstreams do development in their own
fucking sandbox.. no, this is not a cheap jab at Canonical.. it
includes e.g. Red Hat too. Or SUSE.
Thank you, that is very
2011/5/12 Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com:
I'm coming into this interested less in questions framed as how can
Deja Dup make GNOME better than as how can Deja Dup being part of
GNOME make users' backup experience better.
I presume you'd be happy for Deja Dup to become a GNOME Control Center
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
How would you distinguish...?
I don't know. It's typically a highly subjective thing. Mostly it
comes down to what most people refer to as good
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience. Do
we all agree that
I don't know. It's typically a highly subjective thing. Mostly it
comes down to what most people refer to as good taste vs bad
taste. I don't know.
Fair enough.
Not showing 3rd party panels is one path forward. And I think it's the
right one. If all distros just patch in their own panels,
I totally agree, IMHO GNOME is a base to allow distributors, vendors and
third parts to build up and extend their own user experience and
services and fight on free market. No competition means stagnation.
Yes, very true. GNOME wants to dictate some policies. Fair play,
because we own the code.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 16:51, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree, IMHO GNOME is a base to allow distributors, vendors and
third parts to build up and extend their own user experience and
services and fight on free market. No competition means stagnation.
Yes,
We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only polished panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI specialists
are happy with. It is a form of dictate - or I do not know what
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only polished panels to g-c-c. Only panels that
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 16.51 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
Yes. I also think we tried that with GNOME 2 and failed. I mean, look
at GNOME 2's control center - on all distros, it's a royal mess of
random crap from either GNOME, the distro or 3rd party app written by
a kid in a
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
an fancy editor for /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf - it's a completely
inappropriate app because if you know what httpd is, you really don't
want to click GUI buttons - you want to edit the config file with
On 12 May 2011 23:42, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 18.14 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
So? Why this should be a failure?
Because the premise of System Settings in GNOME 3 is,
surprisingly, to change your system settings or personalize the
experience.
So, are there no system settings or personalizations
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 18.14 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
So? Why this should be a failure?
Because the premise of System Settings in GNOME 3 is,
surprisingly, to change your system settings or
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Robert Ancell robert.anc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 May 2011 23:42, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote:
We should strive to make this as easy as possible and having 20
panels such as Java Settings or HTTPD Control or even Firewall
is something that gets in the way. So if we allowed 3rd party panels,
it would be a failure
On 12 May 2011 20:45, Sergey Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com wrote:
GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop (desktop building toolkit, if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience.
That may be what you think
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
This is really starting to drift into a highly emotional and
non-productive direction.
I'm not emotional, just a little overemphatic :)
Not allowing random third parties to put their pet projects
preferences into the
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
