| |||||||||||||
Mark Shuttleworth at LinuxTagMark Shuttleworth at LinuxTagPosted Jun 15, 2010 14:24 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828)In reply to: Mark Shuttleworth at LinuxTag by ccurtis Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth at LinuxTag
There wasn't actually any criticism in my comment if you read it: I'm just noting that they have already diverged pretty far from upstream GNOME in key ways and look set to continue doing that. If they want to do that, it's entirely up to them.
I think it is relatively optimistic, though, to think that you can develop stuff in this manner and expect acceptance by e.g. GNOME, particularly when you're touching relatively core pieces of the desktop UI.
(Log in to post comments)
Mark Shuttleworth at LinuxTag Posted Jun 16, 2010 3:32 UTC (Wed) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link]
Please don't think I'm trying to single you out - there seems to be a contingent of semi-vocal people who appear to enjoy finding fault with Ubuntu/Shuttleworth.
However, implicit in your statement, "I guess they see that as their differentiator though, tbh - i.e., to them, it's a feature." is the contrary position "[...] to me, it's a fault." I'm not arguing the point - the endeavor may very well turn out to be folly. I don't use GNOME (I tried, I really did) so it really has little impact on me, as, I suspect, most of what Ubuntu does impacts its critics.
What is more interesting to me is the broader picture. We see this now as it relates to Ubuntu/GNOME, but it's really the same story of Google Wakelocks and the kernel, with somewhat different details. These sorts of issues need to be clearly resolved in a way amenable to everyone early (forks are okay as long as you discuss your approach first, or whatever), else much needless strife will ensue as I see no reason for issues like these to abate.
|
|||||||||||||