Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product

Gerald Henriksen ghenriks at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 01:14:59 UTC 2014


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.



More information about the desktop mailing list