| |||||||||||||
A look at GNOME ShellA look at GNOME ShellPosted Jun 11, 2010 7:45 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)In reply to: A look at GNOME Shell by rahulsundaram Parent article: A look at GNOME Shell
No, ultimately what counts is whether it works, and works well.
Certainly, I'm not going to make it work well. But those who will not learn the lessons of history won't either.
(Log in to post comments)
A look at GNOME Shell Posted Jun 11, 2010 9:56 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
You forgot to explain what "works well" means. For dconf's developers it seems to be "runs fast", while "works realiably" seems to be yours.
A look at GNOME Shell Posted Jun 11, 2010 12:16 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
We have no scarcity of opinions. We do certainly have a problem of getting people to do the work involved unfortunately. If it doesn't work well, it will fail on its own terms. I rather reserve judgement till that point.
A look at GNOME Shell Posted Jun 11, 2010 14:12 UTC (Fri) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]
The thing is, sticking with our current non-binary system requires no work.
A look at GNOME Shell Posted Jun 11, 2010 15:36 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
No work involved for maintainers or users doesn't make a system ideal if the current characteristics are not right for the next major version of a desktop environment. GNOME has been thinking about a replacement for Gconf for quite sometime. With the opportunity now, they have. One could argue, the previous system was perfect but that isn't reality.
|
|||||||||||||