Hi Jo-Erland, This was discussed in the below bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-shell/+bug/690045 GNOME shell depends on several GNOME 3 libraries, most of which haven't (yet) made their way into Ubuntu. This will be fixed very soon when packages from the Ubuntu GNOME 3 ppa will be uploaded to Natty. After that only we'll re-add GNOME shell into the archive. Bilal Akhtar. On 02/19/2011 07:52 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: > I've noticed that gnome-shell is not provided in the repositories for > Natty. It used to be available in universe, from Karmic to Maverick. > Why is this no longer the case? > > I strongly believe that GNOME Shell should be available in the > repositories, and preferably in main. There is already too much talk > about Ubuntu moving away from GNOME. Removing gnome-shell from the > repositories will encourage that misconception. I personally remain > somewhat sceptical about both Unity and GNOME Shell, but I loudly > applaud the efforts of both projects to innovate and modernize the > desktop. I also think both projects show great promise, and I'm really > looking forward to see how they progress as they mature and are > exposed to a greater audience. > > And I am a little concerned that by both switching to use Unity by > default and removing the main competitor -- GNOME Shell -- from the > repositories, it may seem like Ubuntu is using its power as the most > popular distro to eliminate competition. You will get Unity for free, > it will be installed and used by default. GNOME Shell, on the other > hand... You'll need to search the web, try to find a good PPA, add the > repository and then install it -- if you're really that interested. I > am really hesitant to mention the comparison that automatically > springs to my mind: Microsoft killed Netscape by providing Internet > Explorer for free and, more importantly, installing it by default. No > doubt, it's quite an efficient means of ridding oneself of > competition, but it really doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Ubuntu. > > I don't want to come across as accusing anyone of doing that. But I am > concerned that's the way people will interpret it and that it'll help > fuel tribalism. I strongly believe that the competition between GNOME > Shell and Unity will bring out the best in both of them, but that will > require both of them to be exposed to as vast an audience as possible. > I'm not saying that GNOME Shell should be promoted or installed by > default, only that it should be available from the repositories, at > the very least in universe. I think that by promoting it to main, that > would send a strong signal that Canonical and Ubuntu are not in > conflict with GNOME. Also, if people are able to easily try GNOME > Shell, then if people do stick with it, developers of Unity has a much > better chance of learning why they do so, which will enable them to > improve. The same would be true for GNOME Shell, of course: if people > try it and chooses to use Unity instead, then they will have the > opportunity to learn. The question, therefore, is "is Ubuntu going to > enable the community around it to be able to improve?". These are the > important things in the free software community, and if Ubuntu can do > that, then it will have done something important, that will be > appreciated... :) > > In summary: The current situation makes Unity a symbol of conflict and > an excuse for tribalism, which is as ironic as it is sad. The best > solution is to promote it to main. > > Thanks for reading, > > Jo-Erlend Schinstad > -- Bilal Akhtar - Ubuntu Developer <[email protected]> IRC nick: cdbs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
