T , 2012.11.14. 17:10 +0100, Seif Lotfy rakstīja: > Quoting Stormy Peters comment on a recent blog post concerning GNOME: > " We haven’t shared our vision or our roadmap for the future. Where’s > the product going? What problem are we trying to solve? How are we > going to do that?"
I think we are in same business as Apple - we are trying to offer unified user experience. Difference between us and Apple though is that (in my opinion) most of us strongly believe that openness/freedom and consistent user experience (trough user interface and system design and behavior) can be in same boat (versus "Walled garden" and "guided experience"). I think we can all agree that's our vision. Practically it comes out as "default" set of design and settings. Users are free to extend it with extensions, different themes, changing settings, etc. And there are users who won't change a thing - and that's fine too. We care about both kind of users. Yet we care a *little* more about first set of users because they are not that experienced and they usually want just the job done. In one sentence, we are trying to provide computer environment in which every human being can work with. "Computer for humans". Sounds trivial and banal, but as our experience tells us, this balance is hard to reach to. However, in my opinion, open source/free software strategy, with all it's faults, is very well positioned to deliver just that. There's is no big roadmap (and that's not necessary have been a bad thing so far) because quite a big part of this project is steered by volunteers. It is hard to plan something if you are not sure if you will have time to work on project next year. However, there are number of guidelines we are following, also release team decisions, which are influenced by offers to include different kind of software or technology in core. However, if we aim to have little more impact on market, there are several things which could improve things in my opinion: 1. If we go GNOME OS route, then we should have solid definition what that actually means - starting with minimal as possible. Application wise that means that we have text editor who can do that and that, we have media player who can do that and that. Of course, you can describe *everything*, but having such definition in a form of unit/integration/gui tests would help to track regressions and we would understand where we stand. If you are regular on desktop-devel list you have seen some sad clashes between maitaners/decision makers and another set of developers/super users who "didn't see that coming". Having such definition would at least minimise confusion. 2. We have more dedicated QA team, which works with applications to provide solid way to test their apps for regressions, who would oversee feedback from different sources of users. Respectfully, Peteris Krisjanis. _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list