Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
Why GNOME refugees love Xfce (Register)
Posted Nov 10, 2011 19:14 UTC (Thu) by ThinkRob (subscriber, #64513)
Well they didn't force them in the "hold a gun to their head" sense.
But they absolutely have forced them in the "drop/deprecate/remove/stop releasing security fixes for any other functionality that does not fit with the (new) One True UI" sense.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 19:34 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Anybody else that wants to spend their personal time on Gnome 2 they are free to do so. And it looks like a few people did, like with the MATE desktop.
You can fault them for a few things they did.. But they didn't for anybody to do anything. It's impossible for them to do that even if they wanted too. Only could do this if they kept their software closed source and depended on the violence of the government to enforce licensing requirements, like some other people are wont to do.
Inflated sense of entitlement seem to distort the perspective of many people. This is not something that is unusual for human beings.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 21:25 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
What they actually did was decide to spend their time working on what they want to work.
And their users saw it, (many) decided it was bad, and therefore switched (or whined :))
If the goal of the GNOME developers is to spend their time working on what they enjoy, they have apparently succeeded admirably. If their goal is to have a happy user base, that success is decidedly mixed.
Now I am completely fine with developers having fun with doing whatever they want and not caring about a happy user base. But if that's the goal of GNOME developers, they should at least state that as their policy up front in order to be fair to would-be GNOME users.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 2:35 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
This. Absolutely this.
I remember talking to an IT manager of a small California town experimenting with deploying Gnome 2 desktops (dunno which distro) to some regular city employees. It seemed to be going OK -- most people just needed to know how to open a browser, email, and PDFs, edit Word files, and print. He was able to get everyone productive again, and most didn't care that it wasn't Windows. They learn something once, then do it for a decade.
I can't imagine what Gnome 3 has done to his life.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 23:44 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
You are inevitably going to work with more and more crappier code (as workarounds accumulate) while the state of the art moves farther.
So all real sustainable projects must be based on the mainline versions of QT/KDE or GTK/GNOME. I've been tracking GTK and GNOME mailing lists and I saw multiple instances when developers opposing the One True Vision were alienated. So also a good climate for forks/branches should be there.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 13:40 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
I've seen security updates for GNOME 2.x stuff though, so not only are you wrong in saying that we forced, you're also incorrect in saying that no security updates happened for GNOME 2.x.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 14:55 UTC (Fri) by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
Posted Nov 11, 2011 15:03 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Nov 11, 2011 20:52 UTC (Fri) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138)
> But they absolutely have forced them in the "drop/deprecate/remove/stop
> releasing security fixes for any other functionality that does not fit
> with the (new) One True UI" sense.
Good we're clear on this.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 23:00 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
We give support for stable version for 2 releases after the first one.
Suggest not to put words in my mouth. Policy for stable releases has been the same for years.
Saying "(new) One True UI sense". Well, nothing changed with the number of stable versions we provide with the release of 3.0.
So, no, I don't support your notion.
Posted Nov 13, 2011 16:50 UTC (Sun) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138)
Yes, the Gnome release policy _effectively_ forces its users to move on to newer versions. You simply cannot argue with that. You even just said it again -- "We give support for stable version for 2 releases after the first one."
Before, while the desktop paradigm was remaining familiar, it was not terribly important.
Today, we're left at the doors of a significant change, without any contingency plan (yes, collectively, many of us expected the fallback mode to be such a contingency plan).
It's really simple. Just try to use a little empathy.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 19:17 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I have no idea why this is so, but it seems a reoccurring theme.
Posted Nov 13, 2011 16:54 UTC (Sun) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138)
They make it sound like GNOME is a service to the community, instead of a loosely-knit team of individuals scratching their own itches.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 21:05 UTC (Thu) by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133)
GNOME 3 is not API nor ABI compatible with anything but GNOME 3, so they could've easily changed the name of the libraries or used a sane versioning system, like in the 1.4->2 transition, but no, they had to impose the new UI.
And don't tell me that every Fedora (or whatever) user was "free" to maintain what was effectively a different distro with dozens of heavily patched packages if he wanted to use GNOME 2, because that's hypocritical and we all know it.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 22:05 UTC (Thu) by tuna (guest, #44480)
If you (or anyone else) would like to contribute patches to enable this I believe they would be accepted. Previously on LWN Gnome developers have stated that stated that people can work on Gnome 2 in the Gnome development system (git, bugzilla etc.). However, projects like MATE have decided to use github, why I do not really know.
Posted Nov 10, 2011 23:08 UTC (Thu) by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133)
I'm pretty sure there's something older than that, but I can't find it now.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 8:32 UTC (Fri) by jku (subscriber, #42379)
If you are interested in a useful discussion, you may want to rethink about how you present things in the future. Twisting words like that only manages to create conflict. If that is not your intent, I would suggest a more neutral presentation of what other people are saying or doing.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 9:13 UTC (Fri) by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133)
Now it is true that they didn't resort to physical violence or legal threats, but for me what they did is enough to say that they made parallel installation impossible for all practical purposes.
Posted Nov 11, 2011 16:41 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Also I have never had any issues with running GTK2/Gnome2 software on Gnome 3.
Posted Nov 13, 2011 16:52 UTC (Sun) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138)
Posted Nov 11, 2011 13:43 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Nov 10, 2011 21:54 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds