On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 22:58 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> > We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
> > we envision, period.
> Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
> only "polished" panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI speciali
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 12:58 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.26 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
>
> > The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to
> > complain here.
>
> You have misinterpreted my words; It wasn't a complain for that sp
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.26 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
> The correct way to behave then is to work on the search backends, not to
> complain here.
You have misinterpreted my words; It wasn't a complain for that specific
events, it was an example (but I suppose we could cite/find o
Il giorno Sat, 14/05/2011 alle 01.11 +0200, Luca Ferretti ha scritto:
> Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.42 +0200, Dave Neary ha scritto:
>
> > Please stop polluting my in-box. As many others have said, this thread
> > is going no-where, please just stop posting to it.
>
> This could be true, we
Il giorno Fri, 13/05/2011 alle 18.42 +0200, Dave Neary ha scritto:
> Please stop polluting my in-box. As many others have said, this thread
> is going no-where, please just stop posting to it.
This could be true, we are discussing about ideas and visions and anyone
has his strong option. But hone
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 18:44 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> 2011/5/13 Luca Ferretti :
> > Bonus question: are you sure this "all work happens upstream" can lead
> > to better and faster solutions?
>
> I forgot a little example for this: 3 years ago I wrote
> a trivial patch to add a "Search tool" se
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:28, Gendre Sebastien wrote:
> If I summarize the choice of Gnome Dev about panel by an exemple: The
> choice of operating system to boot at startup. They don't want to see a
> panel for manage Grub, a panel to manage Lilo, a panel to manage EFI,
> etc. But they want to s
2011/5/13 Luca Ferretti :
> Bonus question: are you sure this "all work happens upstream" can lead
> to better and faster solutions?
I forgot a little example for this: 3 years ago I wrote
a trivial patch to add a "Search tool" selector in Preferred Application
preference tool. Start from [1] for
Luca Ferretti wrote:
Luca, I don't want to be rude, but you, Sergey, David, Emmanuele, and
everyone else who has contributed multiple times to this thread in the
past 24 hours have had your say, you've been heard. You're now just
repeating yourself.
Please stop polluting my in-box. As many ot
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 12.28 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi ha scritto:
> On 2011-05-13 at 11:56, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> people just took and barely contributed back solutions to
> the common problem space.
"this is the opensource, baby" (cit.)
Once you release your project with an open source l
> I don't think this way is bad.
You'll have to create abstraction layers for everything (enormous task).
Even for things that perhaps are not worth it.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinf
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 17:28 +0200, Gendre Sebastien a écrit :
> And if we more summarize: They don't want to have too much of redundant
> panels for same features and with different UI logic. They prefer to
> have 1 panel with some different back-end.
>
> I don't think this way is bad.
It i
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 15:49 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov a écrit :
> If that is a bad excuse for the heated discussion, at least that
> explains why it is hot.
If I summarize the choice of Gnome Dev about panel by an exemple: The
choice of operating system to boot at startup. They don't want to see
I apoligise if my remarks were taken personally, I did not mean to offend
anyone. But this is really important political, not technical question. Some
people like me are contributing to the project just because we share(d?) the
core values, like freedom and openness. No money involved, no business.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 03:26:00PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> That's what you want. Do distros want the same? Do 3rd party appdevs want
> the same? Or do you just not care?
To all: This thread is getting too heated and personal for me to feel
comfortable to try and find ways to continue. So I
> I don't see this happening. Are you talking about GNOME 3 or GNOME 2.x
> here?
Gnome3, since gnome2 did not have the goal to define the final experience.
And it was more open.
> The whole design part is new. My view is that we're way more friendly to
> do things for downstream.
What kind of frie
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 12.16 +0200, Olav Vitters ha scritto:
> The control-center maintainers made a quick API for GNOME 3.0 only.
> Saying the removal is censorship?
Of course not a real world censorship, but something that resembles it.
System Settings is a place that can be useful to t
On 2011-05-13 at 12:36, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> > least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
> Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
the most important release of the past 5 years of Gnome being
successful?
what is your metric of success for the previous mod
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:28:25AM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> > Distribution
> > differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged.
> It is not for gnome to decide. See the messages from Ross. Differences are
> inevitable. Let's embrace differences, let's minimise patches. Let's be
> fri
Right. All I asked from the start is documenting the current vision.
> Seems continuing this discussion on desktop-devel-list is not going to
> change anyones mind
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mai
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:36:41PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> > least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
> Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
Let's not go into this type of yes/no discussion any further.
Seems continuing this discussion on desktop-d
> least. it has a painful transition, but it's working pretty fine for now.
Oh really? What is your criteria of success?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On 2011-05-13 at 11:56, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> > How about: raison d'être. What is our mission, what is our reason for
> > existing? Is it to provide a gummy base for others to adapt, modify,
> > and differentiate?
> >
> > No.
>
> Your own vision of open source is totally different from mine.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> So IMHO choosing "a priori" what people can do and what people can't do
> is... well, censorship, sorry. Matthias said "maintaining meaningful
> boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not". Of course this is a
> way to maintain
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 00.51 -0400, William Jon McCann ha
scritto:
>
> How about: raison d'être. What is our mission, what is our reason for
> existing? Is it to provide a gummy base for others to adapt, modify,
> and differentiate?
>
> No.
Your own vision of open source is totally di
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.01 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> >
> > Second: are we a censorship? are we fighting against the ugly? are all
> > non-gnome developers odd and stupid?
> >
> > It seems your starting point is: everybody's
> Distribution
> differences are something to be avoided, not encouraged.
It is not for gnome to decide. See the messages from Ross. Differences are
inevitable. Let's embrace differences, let's minimise patches. Let's be
friendly to downstream.
Anyway, since distros are patching in their capplets -
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:46:51AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
> Right. And this proposal was designed to allow each design team to
> decide their own OS's experience easily by patching the whitelist.
> The plan to drop the API adds a larger technical barrier that appears
> artificial.
AFAIK, the
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:47:52AM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> I guess the questions like that will be discussed again and again. The
> interaction between GNOME and distros is a very complex matter. On
Loads of distribution people are involved within GNOME. The only
problems occur with distri
On 13 May 2011 10:31, Olav Vitters wrote:
> So your suggestion is to still have new panels?
Depending on whether you wanted to allow 3rd party panels, you could
use a brightlist or a whitelist. But yes, a public API coupled with a
whitelist to allow only design-approved external modules.
> It s
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Michael Terry wrote:
> Everyone wins, with exceedingly little technical effort. What do the
> g-c-c maintainers feel about that?
So your suggestion is to still have new panels?
The purpose of no external API is not to make it more difficult, but to
ensur
In a UDS session this week about this control center issue, one
discussed idea was a hard-coded (in source) whitelist or brightlist.
To be clear, a brightlist would be a set of plugins that appear at the
top as "part of the OS" and there's some other section where
everything else goes. A whitelis
Sergey Udaltsov [2011-05-12 20:45 +0100]:
> Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
> patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
> closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
> about free software). Also, that is a very effect
Hi,
This thread has clearly jumped the shark but there is one point worth
responding to here. (which is a shame because deja dup is really
pretty cool. It is too bad the thread was turned on a tangent)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
...
> And note, while this is just an
Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 01.20 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 02:00 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> >
> > Then, as I said on another reply, why are gnome-shell extensions allowed
> > to change gnome-shell so deeply[1]? More, why is gnome-shell providing
> > support
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 02:59 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Yes, but you (as user) are not forced to install all existing GNOME
> related packages in your repositories, neither distros will install them
> in your stead :)
Why would you want tweak something you don't use? The day you want to
enable
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.34 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Some examples of this that we've already seen are:
> - color management (do you know what a perceptual rendering intent is ?)
> - kerberos tickets (would you know whe
> I honestly don't understand. Didn't I just put it in words ? Of
> course, I didn't say 'twist hands', since I disagree that that is what
> we are doing. I would go for 'insisting on design, integration and
> quality'.
I was asking to create a document (on live.gnome.org) where all those
things wo
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Matthias Clasen
> wrote:
>> Figuring this out is hard, and
>> involves talking to designers; it will only happen if we put a hurdle
>> that forces people to do it.
> Those words "hurdle that FORCES people"
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> Figuring this out is hard, and
> involves talking to designers; it will only happen if we put a hurdle
> that forces people to do it.
Those words "hurdle that FORCES people" is EXACTLY what I meant saying
that gnome DICTATES. That's what I
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
>
>
> BTW "pet project"... IMHO "pet" is something that plays down the merits,
> isn't it?
Yeah, a little. Sorry.
What I wanted to allude to with the term 'pet' is tha
2011/5/13 Dylan McCall :
> Okay, that sounds good. Gnome 3's Control Centre _is_ really good.
> However, from the sounds of it, this isn't actually fixing our
> problem. This isn't replacing the system menu, or providing any kind
> of top level order. It configures Gnome, and only Gnome. From here
> This is just absurd - distros were never supposed to compete with each
> other (if I had my way, anyway)
It was not me who brought the idea of "external competition" here;)
Anyway, are you saying that all distros would be happy to use
identical UI?
> You know what I think is selfish? Treating GN
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 17:12 -0700, Dylan McCall wrote:
> I wasn't intending to jump into this because it has become vastly
> tangential and there's a pretty unhappy signal to noise ratio already.
> So, I realize I might be totally misunderstanding this. If I sound
> accusatory or anything, it's pur
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dylan McCall wrote:
> Okay, that sounds good. Gnome 3's Control Centre _is_ really good.
> However, from the sounds of it, this isn't actually fixing our
> problem. This isn't replacing the system menu, or providing any kind
> of top level order. It configures Gno
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 02:00 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
>
> > This is really starting to drift into a highly emotional and
> > non-productive direction.
>
> I'm not emotional, just a little overemphatic :)
>
> > Not allowi
Hi,
2011/5/12 Sergey Udaltsov :
> How can Redhat compete with SUSE if
> both of them use GNOME that defines _final_ user experience?
This is just absurd - distros were never supposed to compete with each
other (if I had my way, anyway) - just check the Internet where people
been cringing about su
I wasn't intending to jump into this because it has become vastly
tangential and there's a pretty unhappy signal to noise ratio already.
So, I realize I might be totally misunderstanding this. If I sound
accusatory or anything, it's purely my writing getting carried away :)
Here goes…
In any Gnome
> Then, as I said on another reply, why are gnome-shell extensions allowed
> to change gnome-shell so deeply[1]? More, why is gnome-shell providing
> support to extensions?
Symptom of disease, obviously. Lethal.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 19.12 -0400, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
> This is really starting to drift into a highly emotional and
> non-productive direction.
I'm not emotional, just a little overemphatic :)
> Not allowing random third parties to put their pet projects
> preferences into the
> Yes, GNOME should be an OS. Yes, GNOME should define the final user
> experience.
Oh really? Someone stated quite recently that we aim for "external
competition", right? If we define the final user experience, if we
build full OS - what's left to distros? What kind of external
competition can we
On 12 May 2011 20:45, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
> desktop ("desktop building toolkit", if you like) that is used by
> distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience.
That may be what you think but, since some time
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
>> We should strive to make this as easy as possible and having 20
>> panels such as "Java Settings" or "HTTPD Control" or even "Firewall"
>> is something that gets in the way. So if we allowed 3rd party panels,
>> it would be a failure becaus
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Robert Ancell wrote:
> On 12 May 2011 23:42, Luca Ferretti wrote:
>> Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
>>
>>> GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
>>> desktop ("desktop building toolkit", if yo
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 18.14 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
>
>> > So? Why this should be a failure?
>>
>
>> Because the premise of System Settings in GNOME 3 is,
>> surprisingly, to change your system settings or personalize t
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 18.14 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
> > So? Why this should be a failure?
>
> Because the premise of System Settings in GNOME 3 is,
> surprisingly, to change your system settings or personalize the
> experience.
So, are there no system settings or personalizati
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 16.54 -0500, Jason D. Clinton ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 16:51, Sergey Udaltsov
> wrote:
> > And anyway, even if we dictate policies - at least we should have
> > courtesy to put them in words, I guess.
>
> We're not dictating anything; we're just making
On 12 May 2011 23:42, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
>
>> GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
>> desktop ("desktop building toolkit", if you like) that is used by
>> distributions - it is them who define t
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 16.51 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
>
>> Yes. I also think we tried that with GNOME 2 and failed. I mean, look
>> at GNOME 2's control center - on all distros, it's a royal mess of
>> random crap from ei
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
>> an fancy editor for /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf - it's a completely
>> inappropriate app because if you know what httpd is, you really don't
>> want to click GUI buttons - you want to edit the config file with
>> vi(1) or whatever your
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 16.51 -0400, David Zeuthen ha scritto:
> Yes. I also think we tried that with GNOME 2 and failed. I mean, look
> at GNOME 2's control center - on all distros, it's a royal mess of
> random crap from either GNOME, the distro or 3rd party app written by
> a kid in a ba
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
>> We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
>> we envision, period.
> Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
> only "polished" panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI specialists
> We're not dictating anything; we're just making an awesome OS, the way
> we envision, period.
Wait a sec. It was said (here and on IRC) that g-c-c wants to include
only "polished" panels to g-c-c. Only panels that gnome UI specialists
are happy with. It is a form of dictate - or I do not know wha
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 16:51, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
>> I totally agree, IMHO GNOME is a base to allow distributors, vendors and
>> third parts to build up and extend their own user experience and
>> services and "fight" on free market. No competition means stagnation.
> Yes, very true. GNOME wan
> I totally agree, IMHO GNOME is a base to allow distributors, vendors and
> third parts to build up and extend their own user experience and
> services and "fight" on free market. No competition means stagnation.
Yes, very true. GNOME wants to dictate some policies. Fair play,
because we own the c
> I don't know. It's typically a highly subjective thing. Mostly it
> comes down to what most people refer to as "good taste" vs "bad
> taste". I don't know.
Fair enough.
> Not showing 3rd party panels is one path forward. And I think it's the
> right one. If all distros just patch in their own pa
Il giorno gio, 12/05/2011 alle 20.45 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov ha scritto:
> GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
> desktop ("desktop building toolkit", if you like) that is used by
> distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience. Do
> we all agree that
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
>> Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
> How would you distinguish...?
I don't know. It's typically a highly subjective thing. Mostly it
comes down to what most people refer to as "good taste" vs "bad
taste". I
> Extension- and plug-in systems is often the symptom of a disease.
How would you distinguish...?
> [1] : Except of course if some downstreams do development in their own
> fucking sandbox.. no, this is not a cheap jab at Canonical.. it
> includes e.g. Red Hat too. Or SUSE.
Thank you, that is very
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
> My whole point was that in the ideal world GNOME could be extensible
> enough so that no _forking_ would be necessary. Extension modules, not
> patches. That would be not a side effect of the license but the
> fundamental feature of th
> No, GNOME is not a supermarket. It's not a place where you go to get
> your technology so you can put it together in your own sandbox. This
> might be inconvenient for downstreams (including my employer) but it
> is what it is. The fact that you _can_ (easily) fork GNOME just
> happens to be a si
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
> GNOME is a core
> desktop ("desktop building toolkit", if you like) that is used by
> distributions
No, GNOME is not a supermarket. It's not a place where you go to get
your technology so you can put it together in your own sandbox. T
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 14:45, Sergey Udaltsov
wrote:
> Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
> patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
> closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
> about free software).
So every piec
> Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
> distributors of GNOME technologies? It seems to me the previous
> position was to use the extension points instead of doing vendor
> patches. Yet, without extension points it seems that vendor patches are
> the only solution th
74 matches
Mail list logo
