Posted Jul 24, 2008 15:06 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Parent article: GNOME 3.0 worries
Instead of really getting to into 'the vision' it's time for 'put up or shut up'.
One of the 'natural' aspects of software development I've noticed is that you have a very very
very hard time defining the question without working on the answer. That is your ideas about
what a program should do and how it's going to do it is going to be wildly different from the
actual practical execution of your ideas. You can't predict in a accurate manner what your
needs are until you actually need them.
So what needs to be done is that people need to start hacking their ideas into Gnome and GTK.
Start moving, start shaking things up. If they wait around for everybody to agree with them
THEN NOTHING WILL EVER GET DONE.
That's all. There is never any guarantees to anything in life.
So people, who want change, are simply going to have to start hacking those changes. When they
reach a brick wall, when they reach the point were the policy of ABI compatibility is holding
them back then they mark that up and discuss it with other people.
Everybody who is prominent seem to say the same thing:
1. Breaking ABI for Breaking ABI's sake is stupid and destructive.
2. Don't pull a KDE 4. If Gnome does that it will be a huge mistake.
3. Not totally against ABI breakage.. They just need a _demonstrable_ and have a very damn
good reason why it _needs_ to be broken.
If people have a concrete reason why they can't do what they want and they have a plan of
action then that's a entirely different matter.
As a end user I care about a few things, in the order of importance, starting with the most
important:
1. I need my applications to run. I need to be able to get work done on a day to day basis.
2. I need a effective work environment with good work flow, consistent, and is fast to use.
(this is very different from actual code performance. The code can be slow as crud as long as
it's faster then me I don't really give a damn)
3. I need to have decent documentation (doesn't matter were, just as long as it exists and is
accessable) and good help system.
4. I need the ability to write simple programs in a sane and consistent manner. I need to be
able to deploy these programs. I need to be able to run these programs created by other
people. I need to have these programs to be able to run without constant maintenance. (aka
enterprise-ish stuff)
5. I want it to be fast. I want it to take advantage of my hardware for efficiency and run
fast on older machines to reduce the cost of running the software.
6. I want it to be pretty. Pretty is very good.
Pay careful attention to the needs vs wants.
Just my opinion. Take it or leave it. If your a Gnome developer, this is your project and all
I can say is 'Go for it'. Really.
Posted Jul 24, 2008 23:10 UTC (Thu) by russell (subscriber, #10458)
[Link]
The days of hack it in or your opinion doesn't count are over. If people don't share a common
vision it won't happen because gnome is too big for one person to hack it all.
Who's going to be the person to hack multi touch into everything? Without a vision of what it
should be everyone will implement it differently.
GNOME 3.0 worries
Posted Jul 25, 2008 5:51 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
[Link]
It still works great for the Linux kernel.
People hack in all their own favorite little projects all the time and if they are good
enough, get them into the kernel.
And unlike Gnome, the Linux kernel is a massive project that is supported by all sorts of
corporations and is used in very mission critical all over the place.
Which approach do you think is the best one? It's quite possible that what Gnome needs is much
less 'vision' then it currently does.
"Show us your code or shut-up" is something that I think is a good approach in a open source
project.
What people want it in this 'break API' thing is demonstrable reasons why it needs to be
broken and in what ways and why breaking it would be a great idea. Without that it's all just
hand waving.
GNOME 3.0 worries
Posted Jul 28, 2008 23:39 UTC (Mon) by russell (subscriber, #10458)
[Link]
The kernel isn't quite what you think. If your stuff doesn't meet with the vision of the
senior developers it won't get in full stop. There is a lot more "vision" imposed in the
kernel than in gnome.
20 years of engineering have shown me there is one constant about software engineers. They
know what there user whats, how the user should do it, and they are always right ( At least
that what they think ).
GNOME 3.0 worries
Posted Jul 31, 2008 18:01 UTC (Thu) by ipes (guest, #43384)
[Link]
> 2. Don't pull a KDE 4. If Gnome does that it will be a huge mistake.
Not doing it would be an even worse mistake though. Gnome will simply be left behind. Just
look at KDE 4.1. Compare it to KDE 4.0 and 3.5.9. Extrapolate to KDE 4.2.