On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 20:16 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
Ok then - so then the debate here should not be about gnome 3 missing features - we all agree - that should be an upstream discussion.
The discussion should turn to what the default desktop should be - in the past it was gnome 2 - gnome 2 is dead and we now have 4 desktop managers to choose among (gnome 3 being just one).
So - lets choose the default desktop manager for fedora from among:
Gnome 3 KDE XFCE LXDE ? Other?
How do we go about changing from gnome 2 to one of the above- since gnome 3 is not gnome 2 it should be on equal footing from above list - should this be by a vote on a website - discussion - fesco - what?
What is the best mechanism for the fedora community to choose the default desktop?
May the best desktop win :-)
This is a much more interesting way of framing the discussion as regards Fedora. Gnome 3 =! Gnome 2, therefore why give any special consideration to Gnome 3 over more well defined projects which predate it? And since we are discussing defaults, the option to use another DM is not a way out here.
I think we are living with a cultural assumption that Gnome would be the default without really considering that Gnome as we knew is gone, completely. Put another way, if Gnome 3 were called something else it is perhaps less likely that it would remain the default.
This is not so different from the current BTRFS debate. ext2/3 is not ext4, which is not BTRFS, but if BTRFS were called "ext5" people would worry over it a lot less.
Perhaps there is a general sense that we've put so much into the Gnome community since the switch from KDE that considering an alternative to it feels bad. Someone on here has a great .sig along the lines of "No matter how far you've gone down the road, turn back." Old proverbs are usually worth some contemplation.
On the other hand, perhaps Gnome 3 embodies such a radically better technical approach that interface silliness is just that -- mere silliness which can be easily adjusted -- but the underlying base is so solid and logical that people who are really familiar with it are just enduring the arguments for now while they prepare Good Things. I consider this to be fairly likely -- though that doesn't help not scare desktop users away in the meantime.
Gnome 2, were it to remain alive in some form, would require a great deal of critical Single Architect cleanup and refactoring. Obviously that was not considered to be worth the effort (which is interesting, considering the history of nixy development and of X in general, and the broad acceptance of Gnome 2 as a platform standard).
-Iwao