Hi, Allan Day wrote: > Brian Cameron wrote: >> I can imagine some situations where a user would want to choose >> 'fallback' mode. For example, when accessing a remote machine via >> XDMCP or Xvnc, users would likely find that 'fallback' GNOME performs >> better - especially if latency is high. If my home directory is shared >> between the remote and local machine, I might want to use GNOME 3 on my >> local machine, but use "fallback" GNOME when I log into remote machines. >> >> I get your point that for the "average" or "typical" user, it probably >> does not make sense to expose the fallback/classic mode. However, there >> will likely always be particular configurations or setups where it makes >> sense for people to use it. Unless GNOME is evolving to simply just not >> support these sorts of use cases anymore. > > In terms of marketing, I'm not sure it makes sense to be targeting these > kinds of users right now. In the longer term, it would be useful to see > wider discussion about GNOME's approach to these kinds of technical > environments.
I buy that, but I think it's important that we have a "who is GNOME 3 *not* for (yet)" which covers audiences for whom GNOME 3 is not appropriate. And we need to have a story for them - such as "we recommend you stick with GNOME 2.32 for another 6 months", or whatever. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list