CC'd over from the Fedora Desktop developers mailing list:
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:04 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> This is a very contentious topic, and you're promoting a minority view
> (I suspect GNOME and KDE are much more popular in Fedora than the
> other desktops), so lots of disagr
Forget to include a citation for the MATE desktop roadmap:
http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/roadmap
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 22:22 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
> CC'd over from the Fedora Desktop developers mailing list:
>
> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:04 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > This is a very c
2014-02-04 Alexander GS :
>
> CC'd over from the Fedora Desktop developers mailing list:
>
> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:04 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> This is a very contentious topic, and you're promoting a minority view
>> (I suspect GNOME and KDE are much more popular in Fedora than the
>>
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-projec
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +, 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
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 22:22 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
> When you abandon active and popular products like that you cause
> developers to fork your product and keep it in active development. Just
> like the MATE team is doing today. In reality MATE is providing the
> free support and development
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +, 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
Btw. Just realized that the post has a bunch of typos, hope you don't
mind a quick re-post to fix those!
To respond that that I'll copy a response I posted to the Fedora
Workstation mailing list, it's modified to address your question
specifically. It provides a context for just how critically imp
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 20:30 -0500, Alex GS wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +, 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 r
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +, 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
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
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
hi;
On 5 February 2014 20:03, Alexander GS wrote:
> It's 2014 and not 1999.
this is pretty much the only thing that you and I agree on. sadly,
from different angles.
> GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk
> becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and comm
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:03 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
> It's 2014 and not 1999.
Do you expect me to read your mail if you start telling me things that
everybody knows and make me wonder if you think I'm stupid? Plus I have
no idea how your posting refers to the posting that you replied to.
Think
Andre I never said you were stupid. It's an expression and perhaps it
was a bit too blunt. Sorry.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 21:34 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:03 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
> > It's 2014 and not 1999.
>
> Do you expect me to read your mail if you start tell
(Red Hat does not make over a billion dollars a year. The billion dollars
was profits, not revenue. We're still a fairly small company operating on
tight margins)
I agree that the "clumsy bag of parts" model is not a good one. That's why
we changed it for GNOME3, in that we're trying to build and
We can agree to disagree on this point. I also want to say that I mean
no offense. GNOME 3 is an excellent project. Really, I can appreciate
how much energy and passion you and the team have put into it. But I
just want to clarify that my comments and Proposal in no way shape or
form maligns or
Agree. I like the way GNOME 3 is heading to: tight integration. This could
definitely brings better UX and easier to test, as a user and a developer,
I like the way it works.
However, this doesn't mean that GNOME 3 does not encounter any problems.
GNOME 3 is building from scratch compare to GNOME
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Alexander GS wrote:
> We can agree to disagree on this point. I also want to say that I mean
> no offense. GNOME 3 is an excellent project. Really, I can appreciate
> how much energy and passion you and the team have put into it. But I
> just want to clarify th
> We're still a fairly small company operating on tight margins.
That's a problem I'm attempting to address by suggesting bringing back a
modern but conservative and business friendly GNOME 2.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:40 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> (Red Hat does not make over a billion doll
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:00 -0500, Mike wrote:
> [...]
> I don't know how does the testing goes inside RedHat, but I found GNOME 3
> still needs to be tested far more than now before each release. Example
> above indicates that the testing process does not even consider about
> existence of input c
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:00 -0500, Mike wrote:
>> [...]
>> I don't know how does the testing goes inside RedHat, but I found GNOME 3
>> still needs to be tested far more than now before each release. Example
>> above indicates that the te
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:00 -0500, Mike wrote:
> > [...]
> > I don't know how does the testing goes inside RedHat, but I found GNOME 3
> > still needs to be tested far more than now before each release. Example
> > above indicates that t
One of the things that makes open-source projects sustainable is
corporate involvement and sponsorship. Due to the success of Chrome OS
and Android in the corporate and education market and the transition of
many institutions to open-source technologies there's a huge opportunity
for a coherent and
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:44 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
> My primary concern isn't GNOME 3.
And it's pretty much our only concern.
Stop copying me on Google+ posts as well, I have no interest in working
on GNOME 2.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
d
hi;
On 5 February 2014 21:00, Mike wrote:
> Agree. I like the way GNOME 3 is heading to: tight integration. This could
> definitely brings better UX and easier to test, as a user and a developer,
> I like the way it works.
>
> However, this doesn't mean that GNOME 3 does not encounter any proble
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:40 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> (Red Hat does not make over a billion dollars a year. The billion
> dollars was profits, not revenue. We're still a fairly small company
> operating on tight margins)
Vice versa, I presume.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digital
Whoops, yes. I got mixed up.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:40 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> > (Red Hat does not make over a billion dollars a year. The billion
> > dollars was profits, not revenue. We're still a fairly small company
> > o
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:00 -0500, Mike wrote:
> BTW, may be a little off topic. I'm confused a bit about the target or the
> goal of GNOME 3 right now. Just this morning I was told on the bugzilla
> that GNOME maintainers "are not meant to be the slaves of popularity
> contests".
That was me in h
Thanks for your reply. It wasn't me asking on that issue, I just happen to
received email on that thread.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:00 -0500, Mike wrote:
> > BTW, may be a little off topic. I'm confused a bit about the target or
> the
> > go
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Alex GS wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +, 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 rea
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:57:08PM -0600, Jim Campbell wrote:
> But if the MATE developers directed their attention to making the GNOME
> Classic Session all that they want it to be rather than supporting an
> aging, legacy codebase, I think both parties would be better off.
Or convincing Xfce dev
There are always a lot of opinions. GNOME 3 is controversial but then
things in Linux generally become that way because people are passionate and
they care. Designing good desktops involves a lot of artistic expression
and experimentation. It's hard work and really difficult to achieve. Then
the
33 matches
Mail list logo
