GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that distributors would rearrange into whatever they wanted.
It's 2014 and not 1999.
That clumsy bag of parts is the reason why the Linux desktop failed. We're in a brave new Linux world where Red Hat now makes over a billion dollars a year, powers the New York Stock Exchange and Google has two Linux products Chrome OS and Android. Requirements have changed and we have Wayland and systemd now as guiding examples of the way forward. Linux projects that fail to consolidate their efforts and collaborate in an organized way are now obstacles to progress slowing everyone down.
GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
Traditionally, GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that distributors would rearrange into whatever they wanted, and we were happy with this. You'd take a dash of gnome-panel, mix it with metacity or sawfish or i3wm, and then slap on some nautilus or gnome-commander.
That's not how we can build a well-integrated, compelling OS. Mixing and matching components means that it's hard to test, and hard to define: all GNOME 2 was just some tarballs and some code.
Projects like Cinnamon and MATE are happy to use our code (it's free software, after all), along with our infrastructure for building their own OS, so they don't have to re-translate the same strings and keep track of the same bugs, but those teams are focusing on building their own OS, not GNOME.
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Alexander GS alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +0000, Allan Day wrote:
> Hi Alex, > > Thanks for reaching out with your ideas. I'm afraid that you're > catching us at a bad time - we are really close to UI freeze and a lot > of us are working flat out on that. I personally don't have much time > to spare on mailing lists right now. :) > > Can you explain what the GNOME 2 sub-project would actually look like? > It's hard to respond without knowing details about how it would > actually work. I understand that you are proposing to utilise some > GNOME 3 modules, but how would it differ? Would it have a 3.x > gnome-control-center? Would it have a shell? If not, which pieces > would you use instead? Would you expect the GNOME project to make > regular GNOME 2 releases alongside GNOME ones? Would we work to ensure > we produce quality GNOME 2 releases as well as GNOME 3 releases? How > would we market these two experiences? What would we recommend to > distributions? > > Thanks, > > Allan After some deep reflection and considerations I finally got the root of my frustration with the GNOME project. In reality I don't have anything against GNOME 3. It's that GNOME has been slow to adapt to the changes in the GNOME ecosystem. The central problem is the idea of having a single dedicated desktop product. That's why I propose the GNOME Meta-Desktop. Posted below is the Problem statement of this proposal as a preview. I've posted the full proposal to the wiki.gnome.org so you can comment on points directly. ----------------------- GNOME Meta-Desktop Problem For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets. Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution. This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to drive it forward. ------------------------ https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop Thank you for your time and attention. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
-- Jasper
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:00 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that distributors would rearrange into whatever they wanted.
It's 2014 and not 1999.
That clumsy bag of parts is the reason why the Linux desktop failed. We're in a brave new Linux world where Red Hat now makes over a billion dollars a year, powers the New York Stock Exchange and Google has two Linux products Chrome OS and Android. Requirements have changed and we have Wayland and systemd now as guiding examples of the way forward. Linux projects that fail to consolidate their efforts and collaborate in an organized way are now obstacles to progress slowing everyone down.
GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community.
You really need to learn to read the whole message, not read until you find a bit you disagree with and then hit reply and drop another essay.
The full quote to which you're replying reads:
-------
Traditionally, GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that distributors would rearrange into whatever they wanted, and we were happy with this. You'd take a dash of gnome-panel, mix it with metacity or sawfish or i3wm, and then slap on some nautilus or gnome-commander.
That's not how we can build a well-integrated, compelling OS. Mixing and matching components means that it's hard to test, and hard to define: all GNOME 2 was just some tarballs and some code.
Projects like Cinnamon and MATE are happy to use our code (it's free software, after all), along with our infrastructure for building their own OS, so they don't have to re-translate the same strings and keep track of the same bugs, but those teams are focusing on building their own OS, not GNOME.
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
--------
i.e. the person to whom you're replying is saying precisely the same thing as you. The quote you took out of context was about how GNOME *used* to do things: it was being set up in opposition to how GNOME is *now* doing things.
You're arguing yourself into an interesting pretzel formation, here, btw. That happens if you just decide in advance whether you're going to agree or disagree with what a particular person has to say and then try to poke holes in their post as you go along, rather than actually having your own rationally-developed position, and sticking to it.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
PROPOSAL
-----------------------
GNOME Meta-Desktop
Problem
For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution. This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to drive it forward.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
------------------------
Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following will occur:
- The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation installations and on install images. Installations and install disks that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora Workstation. This requirement remains indefinitely.
- GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special repositories to do this.
- Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be "supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation installation.
On 5 February 2014 20:27, Alexander GS alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com wrote:
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
You can build what you want to build. I don't think it's what the rest of us are going to be doing...
Richard
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alexander GS alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
PROPOSAL
GNOME Meta-Desktop
Problem
For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution. This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to drive it forward.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following will occur:
- The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official
default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation installations and on install images. Installations and install disks that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora Workstation. This requirement remains indefinitely.
- GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the
option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special repositories to do this.
- Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like
Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be "supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation installation.
You're saying to include Gnome 2 instead of MATE? That is definitely NOT going to work.
Gnome 2 is obsoleted. It has no support for systemd/logind, newer versions of upower, etc. etc. and nobody is going to spend the time to code it. It just wouldn't work.
MATE on the other hand does.
I do like the proposal in general, it was along the lines of the "choose your own adventure" approach I was proposing, but exactly how would you plan on getting it accepted?
Dan
Just to clarify if the GNOME Meta-Desktop is implemented GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 will just be two fully separate desktop interfaces and experiences sitting on top of the same fully modern foundation called GNOME Minimal which includes the technologies you mentioned.
MATE would be involved with as well as a major contributor to GNOME 2. Because projects like MATE are usually low on resources this would be an amazing platform for them. If you look at the proposal there's an SVG image that shows MATE and GNOME 2 as having a direct connection.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
At the same time MATE developers could maintain a separate community and make it's own GNOME 2 spin and include it's own custom applications, themes and branding for things like Linux Mint and it's other interests.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:09 -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alexander GS alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
PROPOSAL
GNOME Meta-Desktop
Problem
For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution. This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to drive it forward.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following will occur:
- The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official
default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation installations and on install images. Installations and install disks that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora Workstation. This requirement remains indefinitely.
- GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the
option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special repositories to do this.
- Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like
Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be "supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation installation.
You're saying to include Gnome 2 instead of MATE? That is definitely NOT going to work.
Gnome 2 is obsoleted. It has no support for systemd/logind, newer versions of upower, etc. etc. and nobody is going to spend the time to code it. It just wouldn't work.
MATE on the other hand does.
I do like the proposal in general, it was along the lines of the "choose your own adventure" approach I was proposing, but exactly how would you plan on getting it accepted?
Dan
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:33 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
Just to clarify if the GNOME Meta-Desktop is implemented GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 will just be two fully separate desktop interfaces and experiences sitting on top of the same fully modern foundation called GNOME Minimal which includes the technologies you mentioned.
Who exactly do you think is going to do all this work?
Adam Williamson wrote:
Who exactly do you think is going to do all this work?
I'm beginning to get the impression that Alex believes sending e-mails to this list constitutes as controlling what developers work on.
Welcome to the open source world, Alex. You have a lot to learn. :)
That's why I published a proposal, it's a proposal, the words "maybe", "perhaps","if", "could", "would" all indicating that fact.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:39 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Who exactly do you think is going to do all this work?
I'm beginning to get the impression that Alex believes sending e-mails to this list constitutes as controlling what developers work on.
Welcome to the open source world, Alex. You have a lot to learn. :)
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:45 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
That's why I published a proposal, it's a proposal, the words "maybe", "perhaps","if", "could", "would" all indicating that fact.
Your proposal requires *someone* to come up with the resources to do a huge amount of work. It's pointless to make such a proposal without some kind of plausible explanation of where all those resources are going to come from. You're also still making your proposals in the wrong place.
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:45:56 -0500 Alexander GS alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I published a proposal, it's a proposal, the words "maybe", "perhaps","if", "could", "would" all indicating that fact.
Maybe we could get Microsoft or Apple to do it, then we can have them build in all the lovely 'drm et al' bits that we currently can't persuade Linux users to insist on. Well they have some spare cash possibly. <well, it's an idea, alas not much of a one/>
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:27:41 -0500, you wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
All your proposal does is formalize the current GTK desktop world mess into an official product that solves none of the problems.
You can't say your proposal provides a "single dedicated desktop experience" while at the same time claiming to offer a GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 experience - those 2 products have fundamentally different design goals and experiences.
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 20:14 -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:27:41 -0500, you wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
All your proposal does is formalize the current GTK desktop world mess into an official product that solves none of the problems.
You can't say your proposal provides a "single dedicated desktop experience" while at the same time claiming to offer a GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 experience - those 2 products have fundamentally different design goals and experiences.
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
Keep in mind it's a DRAFT and not a final copy yet, it has to be refined.
The important part is here:
--- GNOME 2 would be managed by a select committee made up of representatives sent directly from GNOME Foundation corporate sponsors. This committee would also donate a certain percentage of their engineers time to work on the GNOME projects with a focus on GNOME 2. This committee would would draw up GNOME 2 product requirements, act in an advisory capacity and have final say on official releases. GNOME 2 would be tied to RHEL and it's release cycles but there would be more frequent release channels available. ---
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
The corporate committee would basically control the product. It would be a diverse group of people. This way GNOME 2 could be managed correctly and shaped into a proper business desktop and workstation desktop environment.
Just to let you know if you have comments or want to assist with getting this realized there's a COMMENT's section on the bottom of the proposal on the GNOME Wiki page. Please use that or Google+ for general matters.
I don't want to distract the Fedora Developer list any further, I've caused enough of a ruckus.
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:14:59 -0500 Gerald Henriksen ghenriks@gmail.com wrote:
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
Can someone please in "plain" language say what a 3rd Party developer, or al least what is perceived as such?
Frank Murphy (frankly3d@gmail.com) said:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:14:59 -0500 Gerald Henriksen ghenriks@gmail.com wrote:
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
Can someone please in "plain" language say what a 3rd Party developer, or al least what is perceived as such?
Mozilla (upstream firefox builds) Google (Chrome) Valve (Steam) Autodesk (Maya)
would all be examples of a third-party developer that builds apps for a 'desktop'.
Bill
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org