On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:33:08AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: > Or to put this in a tighter nutshell: > > <firefox_developer> we're going to rule (again) on mobile with a firefox > product > <firefox_developer> because we're all user-focused > <luis> that was really my core critique of the GNOME 3.0 proposal > <luis> it is '3.0 because gtk is 3.0' rather than '3.0 because of > these kick-ass user features'
This was at GUADEC! Of course we focus on gtk+ especially if we are right after the gtk+ presentation. > <firefox_developer> a 3.0 that no one cares about > <firefox_developer> ff 3 was called ff 3 because people can _tell_ > it's a damn upgrade Firefox was so long to release that I had to resort to using nightlies. GNOME has a 6 months release cycle. Big difference. We could just as well not release as well for years, then call it a major change. > So, yeah. When we've figured out how to make people tell it's a damn > upgrade, get back to me, until then, calling it 3.0 is a bad idea. > > Sorry again for the stop energy, but when I see things plunging off a > cliff, and a huge opportunity wasted, I think it has to be said... Yes, the stop energy is working. It is a *proposal* and I feel like doing something else. > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Please don't put the technical justification "API & ABI break" front & > >> center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we > >> want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same > >> lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ. > >> > >> Better to be honest, and say "GNOME evolves, and it's important to > >> signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME > >> 2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like > >> GNOME 2.0" - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+ > >> version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish. > >> > >> Version numbers matter to users, and to the press. > > > > I hate to dump on well-meaning people like those of you on r-t, but > > this 3.0 plan is, hands-down, a terrible idea, on a lot of levels, and > > Dave's points here- why are we focusing on API? what are we signaling > > to users?- begin to highlight why. The fact that the very first Your comparing GNOME to Firefox. IMO that is a bad sign. Our users are not the same. We want the GNOME platform to be used by developers. I don't see Firefox caring about their embedded platform (although I wasn't at their presentation). > > sentence of http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 is wrong: "GNOME 3 is needed > > as GTK+ 3 will happen." is just not a good sign. (There are ways to > > educate developers about API/ABI change besides major version numbers > > of the desktop, so GTK3 need not force GNOME3.) I think your confusing this page as it will be the press release or something. > > In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and > > perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than I don't give a damn about KDE. > > making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I > > think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, > > developers, and the media. As Blizzard said in his talk, users must > > drive the agenda. Sitting back and saying 'we're just the platform' is Your forgetting the most important part: We want to change what GNOME means, the platform part. *That* is the main intention. > > a recipe to become less relevant, not more relevant. I realize it is > > frustrating to sit and wait for news user-focused agendas to > > materialize, and I applaud the idea of driving longer-term planning > > which might help drive creation of these agendas. But trying to force > > it by arbitrarily letting an API/ABI change (which users know nothing > > about and care nothing about) set an arbitrary date which may or may > > not have any good ideas is a bad idea. > > > > In more detail: > > > > First, from a user perspective: how am I supposed to understand what > > kind of change has gone on here? The change in major number is > > supposed to indicate radical change. That is what version numbers do. > > It is fair to say that GNOME 2.0 is very different from GNOME 3.0, but > > (1) users aren't going to come to it from GNOME 2.0 unless they've > > been living under a rock- they'll be coming to it from GNOME 2.2x, and > > they'll wonder what the big deal is and (2) at core the user > > experience is the same- same menus, same file manager. Users will > > expect major change and improvement from a GNOME 3.0, and they'll be > > confused and disappointed. With good reason. And never a good idea to We don't want a radical change. Pushing for radical change will lead to a GNOME 2.0. > > confuse and disappoint users. (The counter-argument, that we need to > > go to 3.0 in order to show users that there has been change, is > > broken. *Features* are what show users that there has been change. If > > they haven't noticed the new features when we went from > > 2.0->2.2->...->2.28, why are they suddenly now going to notice these > > features now? Because we slapped a new number on them? Seriously?) > > > > Second, from a developer perspective: I understand the need to > > indicate to developers that an API/ABI change has occurred, but if we > > need to, that is why we have a platform/desktop split- change the > > version number in the platform. Changing the desktop version without a That is really confusing IMO. > > clear vision/agenda, *especially* combined with new API/ABI + porting, > > is an invitation to architecture astronautics and unnecessary churn. > > You're just begging for more tabs- hey, there is a new tab API! ;) 2.0 > > almost failed for this exact reason- before there was a clear vision > > about doing usability/simplicity-centered design, the new version > > number was a huge invitation to insert $VISION here, leading to all > > kinds of crack. (This, IMHO, was KDE4's problem- no user-focused > > vision, just technology churn.) A good 3.0 could be just the opposite- > > find a vision, evangelize it, and say 'here is the deadline', and all We want everything to use non deprecated stuff. > > kinds of good stuff will happen. Instead it looks like the plan is to > > squander that opportunity; if anything, by stepping away from apps and > > letting a free-for-all happen there, it basically sounds like we're > > abandoning user-focused developer vision altogether. Really the proposal was 10% about the version number. It is about setting long term goals, allowing more applications in GNOME. > > Finally, from a media perspective: the reason GNOME 2.0 was a success > > in the Linux media, and the reason KDE 4.0 has been a failure, is that > > GNOME 2.0 had a clear, persuasive story around it: simplification and > > usability. No one in the media cared that we had a new toolkit, except > > where it had specific features (mainly i18n) that had user benefits. > > Writers ate up our usability story- they could tell their readers the > > story we put out there, and it made sense to them. KDE 4 has no > > coherent user-focused story, so this incredible opportunity to reach > > out to the press has been squandered. Instead of the good press we got > > around 2.0, they've got stories like 'is kde 4 a failure'. We had KDE 4.0 did not *work* as promised for a long time. That is what we want to avoid. We don't want a non-working 3.0. That is what generates bad press. As I see it, KDE 4.0 was supposed to be the greatest thing ever. Then it was delayed, while finally the story changed to a 'KDE 4.0 is not KDE 4'. That is something that won't work. > > unhappy users around 2.0, just like they did around 4.0, but the media > > bought our spin on it- 'something you have to break some eggs to make > > an omelette'- because the media understand our clear story around what > > the omelette was. KDE has no idea what their omelette is, so the > > broken eggs are getting all the press. Vista and OSX are, to a certain > > extent, the same- OSX has incremental changes and incremental version > > number changes. The media understands this, and so is willing to let > > slide that there has been no major, revolutionary change at apple for > > 4-5 years now. OSX of 2008 is certainly a much improved experience > > from X.0, just like 2.0 is different from 2.24 (though note that > > they've repeatedly broken API without changing the 10 major version > > #), but Apple has had the good sense not to raise media/user > > expectations until there really is a radical change. Vista was > > essentially a major version number change for minor, incremental > > software changes, and Vista got *destroyed* in the press. Vista is just really annoying to use for no good reason. > > I'm sorry to be so negative, but this is a lousy idea and I think that > > needs to be said. Do not repeat the mistakes of early 2.0 (before we > > got our act together) and KDE 4.0. Be patient; just because Topaz is > > unlikely to happen (I agree) is no reason to rush out and slap 3.0 on > > something. We could just as well stay with 2.xx forever, yes. I'd rather not. We have a lot of cruft that is finally being removed (gnome-vfs, etc). -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list