2 p.m.
GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that distributors would
rearrange into whatever they wanted.
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 and we
have Wayland and systemd now as guiding examples of the way forward.
Linux projects that fail to consolidate their efforts and collaborate in
an organized way are now obstacles to progress slowing everyone down.
GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk
becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> 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 a well-integrated, compelling OS. Mixing
> and matching components means that it's hard to test, and hard to
> define: all GNOME 2 was just some tarballs and some code.
>
>
> Projects like Cinnamon and MATE are happy to use our code (it's free
> software, after all), along with our infrastructure for building their
> own OS, so they don't have to re-translate the same strings and keep
> track of the same bugs, but those teams are focusing on building their
> own OS, not GNOME.
>
> The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
> become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
> operating system.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +0000, 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 lists right now. :)
> >
> > Can you explain what the GNOME 2 sub-project would actually
> look like?
> > It's hard to respond without knowing details about how it
> would
> > actually work. I understand that you are proposing to
> utilise some
> > GNOME 3 modules, but how would it differ? Would it have a
> 3.x
> > gnome-control-center? Would it have a shell? If not, which
> pieces
> > would you use instead? Would you expect the GNOME project to
> make
> > regular GNOME 2 releases alongside GNOME ones? Would we work
> to ensure
> > we produce quality GNOME 2 releases as well as GNOME 3
> releases? How
> > would we market these two experiences? What would we
> recommend to
> > distributions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Allan
>
>
> After some deep reflection and considerations I finally got
> the root of
> my frustration with the GNOME project. In reality I don't
> have anything
> against GNOME 3. It's that GNOME has been slow to adapt to
> the changes
> in the GNOME ecosystem. The central problem is the idea of
> having a
> single dedicated desktop product.
>
> That's why I propose the GNOME Meta-Desktop. Posted below is
> the Problem
> statement of this proposal as a preview. I've posted the full
> proposal
> to the wiki.gnome.org so you can comment on points directly.
>
> -----------------------
>
> GNOME Meta-Desktop
>
> Problem
>
> For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of
> the
> "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each
> platform is
> bolted down to a single desktop interface design.
> Unfortunately projects
> like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single
> dedicated
> desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to
> fragment
> causing divisions and frictions between the various
> communities. This
> has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to
> shape
> desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target
> markets.
>
> Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a
> meta-desktop with
> GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this
> evolution.
> This brings along with it several problems such as
> fragmentation and
> redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized,
> needs
> community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop
> products to
> drive it forward.
>
> ------------------------
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
>
> Thank you for your time and attention.
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list(a)gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jasper
>
2:08 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:00 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
> GNOME shipped itself as a bag of parts that distributors would
> rearrange into whatever they wanted.
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 and we
have Wayland and systemd now as guiding examples of the way forward.
Linux projects that fail to consolidate their efforts and collaborate in
an organized way are now obstacles to progress slowing everyone down.
GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk
becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community.
You really need to learn to read the whole message, not read until you
find a bit you disagree with and then hit reply and drop another essay.
The full quote to which you're replying reads:
-------
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 a well-integrated, compelling OS. Mixing
and matching components means that it's hard to test, and hard to
define: all GNOME 2 was just some tarballs and some code.
Projects like Cinnamon and MATE are happy to use our code (it's free
software, after all), along with our infrastructure for building their
own OS, so they don't have to re-translate the same strings and keep
track of the same bugs, but those teams are focusing on building their
own OS, not GNOME.
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
operating system.
--------
i.e. the person to whom you're replying is saying precisely the same
thing as you. The quote you took out of context was about how GNOME
*used* to do things: it was being set up in opposition to how GNOME is
*now* doing things.
You're arguing yourself into an interesting pretzel formation, here,
btw. That happens if you just decide in advance whether you're going to
agree or disagree with what a particular person has to say and then try
to poke holes in their post as you go along, rather than actually having
your own rationally-developed position, and sticking to it.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:27 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's
trying to
become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop
experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but
there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also
excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment
for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would
realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the
Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
PROPOSAL
-----------------------
GNOME Meta-Desktop
Problem
For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the
"single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is
bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects
like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated
desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment
causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This
has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape
desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with
GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution.
This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and
redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs
community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to
drive it forward.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
------------------------
Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following
will occur:
- The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official
default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation
installations and on install images. Installations and install disks
that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora
Workstation. This requirement remains indefinitely.
- GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the
option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special
repositories to do this.
- Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like
Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be
"supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation
installation.
2:29 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On 5 February 2014 20:27, Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and
the
Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
You can build what you want to build. I don't think it's what the rest
of us are going to be doing...
Richard
3:09 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
> become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
> operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop
experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but
there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also
excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment
for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would
realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the
Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
PROPOSAL
-----------------------
GNOME Meta-Desktop
Problem
For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the
"single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is
bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects
like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated
desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment
causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This
has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape
desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with
GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution.
This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and
redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs
community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to
drive it forward.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
------------------------
Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following
will occur:
- The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official
default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation
installations and on install images. Installations and install disks
that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora
Workstation. This requirement remains indefinitely.
- GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the
option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special
repositories to do this.
- Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like
Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be
"supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation
installation.
You're saying to include Gnome 2 instead of MATE? That is definitely
NOT going to work.
Gnome 2 is obsoleted. It has no support for systemd/logind, newer
versions of upower, etc. etc. and nobody is going to spend the time to
code it. It just wouldn't work.
MATE on the other hand does.
I do like the proposal in general, it was along the lines of the
"choose your own adventure" approach I was proposing, but exactly how
would you plan on getting it accepted?
Dan
4:33 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop
Just to clarify if the GNOME Meta-Desktop is implemented GNOME 3 and
GNOME 2 will just be two fully separate desktop interfaces and
experiences sitting on top of the same fully modern foundation called
GNOME Minimal which includes the technologies you mentioned.
MATE would be involved with as well as a major contributor to GNOME 2.
Because projects like MATE are usually low on resources this would be an
amazing platform for them. If you look at the proposal there's an SVG
image that shows MATE and GNOME 2 as having a direct connection.
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
At the same time MATE developers could maintain a separate community and
make it's own GNOME 2 spin and include it's own custom applications,
themes and branding for things like Linux Mint and it's other interests.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:09 -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alexander GS
<alxgrtnstrngl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
>> become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
>> operating system.
>
> Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop
> experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but
> there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also
> excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment
> for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would
> realize that.
>
> I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the
> Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
>
> PROPOSAL
>
> -----------------------
>
> GNOME Meta-Desktop
>
> Problem
>
> For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the
> "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is
> bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects
> like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated
> desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment
> causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This
> has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape
> desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
>
> Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with
> GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution.
> This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and
> redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs
> community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to
> drive it forward.
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
>
> ------------------------
>
> Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following
> will occur:
>
> - The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official
> default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation
> installations and on install images. Installations and install disks
> that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora
> Workstation. This requirement remains indefinitely.
>
> - GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the
> option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special
> repositories to do this.
>
> - Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like
> Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be
> "supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation
> installation.
You're saying to include Gnome 2 instead of MATE? That is definitely
NOT going to work.
Gnome 2 is obsoleted. It has no support for systemd/logind, newer
versions of upower, etc. etc. and nobody is going to spend the time to
code it. It just wouldn't work.
MATE on the other hand does.
I do like the proposal in general, it was along the lines of the
"choose your own adventure" approach I was proposing, but exactly how
would you plan on getting it accepted?
Dan
4:36 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:33 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
Just to clarify if the GNOME Meta-Desktop is implemented GNOME 3 and
GNOME 2 will just be two fully separate desktop interfaces and
experiences sitting on top of the same fully modern foundation called
GNOME Minimal which includes the technologies you mentioned.
Who exactly do you think is going to do all this work?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:39 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop
Adam Williamson wrote:
Who exactly do you think is going to do all this work?
I'm beginning to get the impression that Alex believes sending e-mails to this
list constitutes as controlling what developers work on.
Welcome to the open source world, Alex. You have a lot to learn. :)
4:45 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop
That's why I published a proposal, it's a proposal, the words "maybe",
"perhaps","if", "could", "would" all indicating
that fact.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:39 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Who exactly do you think is going to do all this work?
I'm beginning to get the impression that Alex believes sending e-mails to this
list constitutes as controlling what developers work on.
Welcome to the open source world, Alex. You have a lot to learn. :)
4:55 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:45 -0500, Alexander GS wrote:
That's why I published a proposal, it's a proposal, the words
"maybe",
"perhaps","if", "could", "would" all indicating
that fact.
Your proposal requires *someone* to come up with the resources to do a
huge amount of work. It's pointless to make such a proposal without some
kind of plausible explanation of where all those resources are going to
come from. You're also still making your proposals in the wrong place.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:58 a.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:45:56 -0500
Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's why I published a proposal, it's a proposal, the words
"maybe",
"perhaps","if", "could", "would" all indicating
that fact.
Maybe we could get Microsoft or Apple to do it,
then we can have them build in all the lovely
'drm et al' bits that we currently can't persuade
Linux users to insist on.
Well they have some spare cash possibly.
<well, it's an idea, alas not much of a one/>
7:14 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:27:41 -0500, you wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
> become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
> operating system.
Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop
experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but
there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also
excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment
for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would
realize that.
I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the
Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
All your proposal does is formalize the current GTK desktop world mess
into an official product that solves none of the problems.
You can't say your proposal provides a "single dedicated desktop
experience" while at the same time claiming to offer a GNOME 3 and
GNOME 2 experience - those 2 products have fundamentally different
design goals and experiences.
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the
current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME
Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
8:19 p.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 20:14 -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:27:41 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
>> become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
>> operating system.
>
>Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop
>experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but
>there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core. It also
>excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment
>for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would
>realize that.
>
>I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the
>Gnome community projects. It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
All your proposal does is formalize the current GTK desktop world mess
into an official product that solves none of the problems.
You can't say your proposal provides a "single dedicated desktop
experience" while at the same time claiming to offer a GNOME 3 and
GNOME 2 experience - those 2 products have fundamentally different
design goals and experiences.
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the
current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME
Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
Keep in mind it's a DRAFT and not a final copy yet, it has to be
refined.
The important part is here:
---
GNOME 2 would be managed by a select committee made up of
representatives sent directly from GNOME Foundation corporate sponsors.
This committee would also donate a certain percentage of their engineers
time to work on the GNOME projects with a focus on GNOME 2. This
committee would would draw up GNOME 2 product requirements, act in an
advisory capacity and have final say on official releases. GNOME 2 would
be tied to RHEL and it's release cycles but there would be more frequent
release channels available.
---
https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
The corporate committee would basically control the product. It would
be a diverse group of people. This way GNOME 2 could be managed
correctly and shaped into a proper business desktop and workstation
desktop environment.
Just to let you know if you have comments or want to assist with getting
this realized there's a COMMENT's section on the bottom of the proposal
on the GNOME Wiki page. Please use that or Google+ for general
matters.
I don't want to distract the Fedora Developer list any further, I've
caused enough of a ruckus.
2:52 a.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:14:59 -0500
Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is
the
current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME
Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
Can someone please in "plain" language say what a 3rd Party developer,
or al least what is perceived as such?
6:57 a.m.
New subject: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product
Frank Murphy (frankly3d(a)gmail.com) said:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:14:59 -0500
Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Third party developers want 1 target to aim for, and whether is is the
> current mess of GNOME / Cinnamon / MATE (plus KDE) or your GNOME
> Meta-Desktop the problem is not solved because there is no 1 target.
Can someone please in "plain" language say what a 3rd Party developer,
or al least what is perceived as such?
Mozilla (upstream firefox builds)
Google (Chrome)
Valve (Steam)
Autodesk (Maya)
would all be examples of a third-party developer that builds apps for a
'desktop'.
Bill
3725
days inactive
3726
days old
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adam Williamson -
Alex G.S. -
Bill Nottingham -
Dan Mashal -
Frank Murphy -
Gerald Henriksen -
Michael Cronenworth -
Richard Hughes