User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Quotes of the week

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 1, 2013 9:25 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
In reply to: Quotes of the week by duffy
Parent article: Quotes of the week

if you consider GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 to be different projects. They are not.
From the developer's point of view, maybe not. But from the user's point of view it does appear that GNOME 2 was abandoned and replaced by a new project GNOME 3 which is quite different. So, to adapt what you wrote: do you really want to base the distribution on a desktop environment which will probably be abandoned and replaced with something different a few years from now? (even if technically, the new thing is written by the same people and has a similar name)

(I would say the answer is probably yes, since Fedora is not RHEL and it is more important to have the latest stuff rather than commit to provide a stable environment for the next N years.)

(Log in to post comments)

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 5, 2013 20:38 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]

Suggest that you compare GNOME 2.0 with GNOME 2.32. It changed hugely over the years. GNOME 2.x was released over a period of 8 years or so. It has been a bit over 2 years already since GNOME 3.0 was released.

Historically, GNOME has provided a very consistent desktop. Where is the data showing that a fork is viable? We do have data on various abandoned forks. I have not seen a fork going around for 8 years straight :P

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds