Clasen: GNOME 3.7 at the halfway mark
Posted Jan 25, 2013 18:58 UTC (Fri) by tetley80
In reply to: Clasen: GNOME 3.7 at the halfway mark
Parent article: Clasen: GNOME 3.7 at the halfway mark
Keeping GNOME 2 as it is isn't really an option since it is dead upstream
That's false reasoning from two points of view. (i) G2 is not dead upstream, as the MATE desktop is maintaining the G2 branch. (ii) Just because something is "dead upstream", it doesn't mean it's useless; you can always incorporate minor bug fixes, which is the job of a distribution.
GNOME 3 was an upgrade to an already existing default
Sorry, but that's a gross misinterpretation at best, and attempt at rewriting history at worst.
Labeling G3 as an "upgrade" is not in the same league as updating gcc 4.6 to 4.7, or going from Gnome 2.26 to 2.28, or going from kernel 3.4 to 3.5.
In comparison to Gnome 2, Gnome 3 is closer to a rewrite, even if we only restrict ourselves to looking at the UI changes. This clearly indicates that G3 was a brand new component. This new component got insufficient testing before it was forced upon the Fedora community.
If you can force a new component such as G3 to be the default, not applying the same standard to the Cinnamon desktop is disingenuous. This is further underlined by the fact that the "delta" between G3 and Cinnamon is much smaller than between G2 and G3.
Moreover, the Gnome 3 shell can be considered a regression from a UI perspective, with Cinnamon aiming to fix that regression (while still using the underlying Gnome 3 components).
Also there is zero "force" unless you consider any "default" as force since there are tons of options
If we use the above logic, nobody will mind if we suddenly switch over to the Clang compiler (instead of gcc), without any wide testing in Fedora. After all, if people don't like it they can create their own gcc spin. While we're at it, how about we swap the Linux kernel to use one of the BSD kernels? Nobody will mind, as after all, there are tons of options. People can always create a Linux-kernel spin of Fedora.
The point I'm making above is that Gnome 3 was an arbitrary choice of a default, without due testing of the proposed default by the wider Fedora community. It certainly wasn't a simple "upgrade".
to post comments)