Slashdot Mirror

This is GNOME 3.16. Why would I compare a .0 with the 8th release?
Frankly I think a lot of the criticism in 2.0 was justified and it isn't this blink hate of GNOME from slashdot that gets portrayed in the GNOME community, which looking at later releases of GNOME 2 adequately demonstrates.

Personally I find DEs with overview mode hostile to those with ADHD. And some of the bugs with regressions are simply too painful to fathom. I use minimize to change the order of alt-tab. This was impossible in GNOME for well over a year in both Shell and Classic because Jon McCann thought fullscreen was "ugly." People using fullscreen were also more than a bit put out.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

So while it is nice that you think it is improving, any group that claims to say form follows function and then does crap like that while treating its users and former users with such disdain is certainly not for me. That and I just can't get past the overview mode. I don't need additional flashing.

This is GNOME 3.16. Why would I compare a .0 with the 8th release?
Frankly I think a lot of the criticism in 2.0 was justified and it isn't this blink hate of GNOME from slashdot that gets portrayed in the GNOME community, which looking at later releases of GNOME 2 adequately demonstrates.

Personally I find DEs with overview mode hostile to those with ADHD. And some of the bugs with regressions are simply too painful to fathom. I use minimize to change the order of alt-tab. This was impossible in GNOME for well over a year in both Shell and Classic because Jon McCann thought fullscreen was "ugly." People using fullscreen were also more than a bit put out.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

So while it is nice that you think it is improving, any group that claims to say form follows function and then does crap like that while treating its users and former users with such disdain is certainly not for me. That and I just can't get past the overview mode. I don't need additional flashing.

This is GNOME 3.16. Why would I compare a .0 with the 8th release?
Frankly I think a lot of the criticism in 2.0 was justified and it isn't this blink hate of GNOME from slashdot that gets portrayed in the GNOME community, which looking at later releases of GNOME 2 adequately demonstrates.

Personally I find DEs with overview mode hostile to those with ADHD. And some of the bugs with regressions are simply too painful to fathom. I use minimize to change the order of alt-tab. This was impossible in GNOME for well over a year in both Shell and Classic because Jon McCann thought fullscreen was "ugly." People using fullscreen were also more than a bit put out.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

So while it is nice that you think it is improving, any group that claims to say form follows function and then does crap like that while treating its users and former users with such disdain is certainly not for me. That and I just can't get past the overview mode. I don't need additional flashing.

Phantomfive, first may I say that your "code review" was a disappointment. I was hoping for a pretense to objectivity.

However, the gnome/systemd thing has been fought out on the gnome developers mailing list, on LWN, and on various developer's blogs. The short form is they need various (generally session-related) features that are not provided by anything else. All of these decisions have been fought over heavily.

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitte...
https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitte...
http://lwn.net/Articles/520892...

Frankly, I don't think you have any qualifications to be second-guessing anyone else's coding decisions, and certainly not if your "code review" is any evidence. However, all of the decisions and justifications have been public, so the information is out there if you want to look.

Phantomfive, first may I say that your "code review" was a disappointment. I was hoping for a pretense to objectivity.

However, the gnome/systemd thing has been fought out on the gnome developers mailing list, on LWN, and on various developer's blogs. The short form is they need various (generally session-related) features that are not provided by anything else. All of these decisions have been fought over heavily.

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitte...
https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitte...
http://lwn.net/Articles/520892...

Frankly, I don't think you have any qualifications to be second-guessing anyone else's coding decisions, and certainly not if your "code review" is any evidence. However, all of the decisions and justifications have been public, so the information is out there if you want to look.

I was referring to this. Consolekit is deprecated, now the options are systemd and systemd-shim, or systembsd. Some people are saying that if you don't use systemd, then you lose functionality, but I haven't had time to look into that yet.

On of the biggest is simple. Gnome depends on it

And oft repeated claim, that happens to be untrue.

Gnome depends on some facilities of systemd, but those same facilities can be provided by things other than systemd (consolekit, systemd-shim, loginkit, maybe uselessd or systembsd if they get their act together).

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2015/02/24/consolekit-in-gnome-3-16-and-beyond/

Here's a link I have handy to where he was pushing it for Gnome.

And that dates from 2011, and when the consensus went against him he specificly included code in Gnome to make it not depend on systemd.

Here's a link I have handy to where he was pushing it for Gnome.

If anyone knows why Gnome chose to depend on systemd, please let me know.

I can't see how you expect a useful reply to this question since Gnome doesn't depend on systemd.

Source:

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2015/02/24/consolekit-in-gnome-3-16-and-beyond/

Quite frankly, I'd like to question [cross-platform compatibility]. In the light of GNOME OS I think we need to ask ourselves the question if we do ourselves any good if we continue to support all kinds of kernels that simply cannot keep up with Linux anymore.

No wonder people don't like this guy. If everyone follows that attitude, it will really mess up the ecosystem.

It's a guess from being on the gconf mailing list for years,

ok, that's a good hint, I knew there must be a mailing list somewhere (or some place for discussion). From that hint, I found Lennart himself pushing systemd. I'm sure there's more in there.

user error? It's the default look... screenshots

here

Note how he starts by claiming it isn't a dependency and never will be, then backpeddles until he's basically saying it will be.

But your honor, it wasn't a mugging, he didn't HAVE to give me his money. Yes, it is possible that I said something about burning down hios house, goiuging his eyes out, torturing his family to death and then setting him on fire, but he could have chosen that over giving me his money!

Constructively, it is becoming a hard dependency such that any sane person who doesn't want systemd has made plans to stay far away from gnome.

I like cheap knockoffs just like the next guy, if they effectively do the same thing as the "real thing". If they don't then it's more of a problem. (the stated case has nothing to do with alibaba I believe)

Systemd is actually *really* easy to get rid of, you just have to be willing to do without Gnome and other packages that depend upon it.

If you aren't willing to make that choice, then you have chosen to run with it.

Statements like this are one of the many reasons people get pissed about systemd. I can't tell if this is just a really good troll, or if you seriously believe that and are ok with it, but I suspect that latter just because of apparent mindset of pro-systemd folks. So, assuming the latter...

You're saying systemd is easy to get rid of, if you get rid of all the things that now depend on it, and those that will in the future. Logind, for example, which means Gnome, which means other gnome stuff, and that's just one branch of the tree (though probably the most prominent at this time). That's just ridiculous for a desktop app or a display manager (gdm/xdm/kdm/etc) to depend on a specific init system (it doesn't directly, but GDM depends on logind, which depends on systemd). How about an example...

What if KDE started depending on something similar but different than logind, and it depended on a different init system. If that happened, I couldn't have one user using gnome and another using KDE using fast user switching on the desktop. That'd require a bunch of compatibility stuff to be in place... which is actually something those two groups (and others) have been working hard at for years (ex. shared "start" menus, session management, audio multiplexing (arts/esd/pulse), etc).

Regaring gnome+logind+system, I found this to be a good read: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitte...
It sort of argues that gnome doesn't need systemd. However, it acknowledges that:
* GNOME 3.8 doesn't directly require logind
* ... but GDM assumes (requires) an init system that will also clean up any process it started. Basically, it needs a feature that is more-or-less unique to systemd.
* If logind is required/included, GNOME did NOT intend for this to mean systemd was also required. However, their assumption that logind was independent from systemd changed since systemd v205 due to cgroups kernel change.
* similar stuff continues regarding session management, wayland, etc etc

Those are, IMO, huge red flags. A very large project starts making many parts dependent on some (currently) independent project (logind). Then logind/systemd inject some dependencies, and now gnomes intent is screwed - they're essentially depending on a specific init system now. How is that a good thing?

FWIW, I'm NOT saying that:
* gnome shouldn't be free to develop as it wishes
* systemd shouldn't be allowed to do what it's doing
* users shouldn't be free to use this stuff
* distros shouldn't be free to choose these things ... but why is it so difficult for so many people to understand why this pisses off many many people? Seems pretty obvious for many reasons.

Personally, I think many of the distros have failed us with this integration. It shouldn't have been allowed to be the default until, at the minimum, compatibility layers were available (ex. uselessd). Maybe have some forks that made it the fully integrated default, but debian... ouch. It's parts are actually more of a problem than systemd itself... there should be a logind alternative, or it should be capable of running without systemd (same goes for all the other "modular" parts). I'm not saying the devs should be forced to do this; I'm saying distros and users shouldn't accept it as the default until that flexibility is in place.

Sorry that this has almost nothing to do with *BSD, except that it lacks systemd.

Here's a good description of why Gnome uses systemd-logind.
https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

You might want to read this post from a few years ago when the GNOME and GTK 3.x were replacing thir 2.x branches. Of particular interest is the quotes of Allan Day (GNOME dev and RedHat employee):

Facilitating the unrestricted use of extensions and themes by end users seems contrary to the central tenets of the GNOME 3 design. We’ve fought long and hard to give GNOME 3 a consistent visual appearance, to make it synonymous with a single user experience and to ensure that that experience is of a consistently high quality. A general purpose extensions and themes distribution system seems to threaten much of that.

[...]

I’m particularly surprised by the inclusion of themes. It seems bizarre that we specifically designed the GNOME 3 control center not to include theme installation/selection and then to reintroduce that very same functionality via extensions.

[...]

One particular issue is the ability for users to modify the top bar via extensions. This part of the UI is vital for giving GNOME 3 a distinctive visual appearance. If we do have extensions, I would very much like to see the top bar made out of bounds for extension writers, therefore. We have to have at least *something* that remains consistent.

[...]

The point is that it decreases our brand presence. That particular user might understand what it is that they are running, but the person who sees them using their machine or even sees their screenshots on the web will not. The question we have to ask ourselves is: how do we make sure that people recognise a GNOME install when they see one?

So not only is this about enforcing a monoculture, the reason to enforce a monoculture is because the desktop isn't about getting work done. No, the desktop - according to GNOME - is for branding/advertizing.

*sigh*

While we're on the subject, I recommend everybody read this post by the same author. It's speculative, but it does explain a lot of what has been happening to linux over the last few years... and how it may fit into the large picture.

Shotwell https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Sh... is very nice for browsing/tagging. I just wish it had a more advanced raw editing mode like RawTherapee or Darktable.

If you mean machine-code, please just put machine-code. "ML" is taken.

exemple the Gobject API. This is clearly not the most elegant way to do OO but it works and it can be as efficient a true OO langage.

Indeed, and if you want elegant GObject, there's always Vala, a C#-like language which compiles to C.

Yes, it's real. It is completely fucking unbelievable, but it is real. You can see more examples on gedit's website: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Gedit/Screenshots

You're absolutely right. Hipsters are killing open source projects left and right with their fucking awful UI changes.

Just look at what happened to gedit. It's a text editor that comes with GNOME.

It's absolutely fucking moronic what they've done to gedit. They've managed to completely destroy the UI of a text editor, for crying out loud!

Why the fuck would I want to contribute anything but a total and complete reversion back to the old UI? Getting rid of this shit-for-brains UI is the best possible bugfix that gedit could undergo right now. But will it be accepted? Of course not! The hipsters can't possibly be wrong about the UI.

Substitute 'Firefox' or just about any other open source program in place of 'Gedit' and you have a perfect description of what is wrong with open source today.

You're absolutely right. Hipsters are killing open source projects left and right with their fucking awful UI changes.

Just look at what happened to gedit. It's a text editor that comes with GNOME.

Gedit used to look like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Gedit2261.png

It had a clean, usable, consistent UI. The major functionality was easily available, and the UI was extremely intuitive and efficient to use.

The hipsters can't stand for usable software, of course. It needed to be "improved"!

This is what gedit looks like more recently: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Gedit_3.11.92.png

I'm not joking. That's really what it looks like. Using it is even worse than it looks.

Gedit's UI today is fucking awful.

It's like they've taken the worst aspects of tablet UI design, and forced it into a text editor that's probably never used anywhere but on desktops and laptops.

The traditional menus and toolbars are gone, replaced with incomprehensibly bad icons and a shitty Chrome-style hamburger menu that's an unusable jumble of unrelated functionality.

It's absolutely fucking moronic what they've done to gedit. They've managed to completely destroy the UI of a text editor, for crying out loud!

Why the fuck would I want to contribute anything but a total and complete reversion back to the old UI? Getting rid of this shit-for-brains UI is the best possible bugfix that gedit could undergo right now. But will it be accepted? Of course not! The hipsters can't possibly be wrong about the UI.

Apparently this has been encouraged by systemd developesr: https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

GTK's answer to the Qt's 'MOC' preprocessor is Vala: a whole C#-like language, just for GObject, which compiles to C.

Well, no, it's not deliberate. They are dependent on systemd because ConsoleKit is dead and rotting, and no other system provides the features they need. They would be happy to lose that dependency if there was an alternative.

But you're not helping, 0123456

0123456: What do you mean, I'm not helping?!

I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, 0123456?!

...

They're just questions, 0123456. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a troll, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?

Started on this last night, but I'm not super familiar with the OpenGL details on OS X either. Help with scaling and fixing the painting welcome. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

Look, most severs these days are configured in such a way that STARTTLS runs on a different port than the plain-text connection.

Wrong. STARTLS specifically allows for both plain text and TLS on the same port.

The server will reject login requests until the STARTTLS handshake is completed.

Partially correct. A well configured server will behave this way on the *submission* port (587) but if the MX port (25) were configured this way then you would be blocking a lot of legitimate email from old servers on the internet that do not support STARTTLS and as such is is not recommended to require STARTTLS for port 25 MX to MX communication. Also even when STARTTLS is used the connection is still plain text until STARTTLS is negotiated.

But take it from a guy who worked on an email client

Thanks for giving me a link to yet another piece of software written by someone who doesn't understand the technology behind it.

(Also: STOP USING STARTTLS!!!)

Wrong again. The only way to have an encrypted SMTP submission channel without STARTTLS (other than tunnelling through ssh or something like that) is via SMTPS (port 465). SMTPS is long ago deprecated and should not be used. Port 465 was *never* officially registered for this use and was essentially "hijacked" and there are only a very small number of old email clients that support SMTPS but do not support STARTTLS. You *should* be using STARTTLS over port 587 which is the submission port. Also STARTTLS is the only legitimate means of encryption between a submission server and an MX.

Of note (which I've also said elsewhere), the real reason the author of the original article had problems is because he is trying to use port 25 for submission. He should be using the submission port (587) and it is highly unlikely that his ISP would be blocking the STARTTLS flag on that port.

By stripping out this flag, these ISPs prevent the email servers from successfully encrypting their conversation, and by default the servers will proceed to send email unencrypted.

Look, most severs these days are configured in such a way that STARTTLS runs on a different port than the plain-text connection. The server will reject login requests until the STARTTLS handshake is completed.

So sure, a few old, badly configured servers will continue over an unencrypted connection. But take it from a guy who worked on an email client, this is not a typical setup these days.

(Also: STOP USING STARTTLS!!!)

https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

None of which this tablet system falls under other since this isn't "downloadable computer software".

Any software that can be copied and installed over a network is "downloadable".Groupon's hardware product is a case for an iPad and I'll bet you their software is installed on those iPads over a network.

Groupon is applying for trademarks in a broad array of areas, such as "contact management software used to organize and retrieve customer contact information; electronic commerce and transaction application software that allows users to engage in electronic business transactions via a global computer network; printer software for operating printers and printing". GNOME links to the complete list here. It's a genuine problem.

From the Gnome bug report:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

Some key dates for the use of the word "activities":

14 April 2008: "Add Activity" button implemented in KDE Plasma
http://websvn.kde.org/?view=re...

29 April 2008: KDE 4.1 Alpha 1 released
http://www.kde.org/announcemen...

29 May 2008: First detailed press reports on KDE's activity concept
http://arstechnica.com/open-so...

29 July 2008: KDE 4.1.0 released
http://www.kde.org/announcemen...

11 October 2008: "Activities menu" concept added to GNOME wiki during the
Boston GNOME Hackfest
http://live.gnome.org/action/d...

From the Gnome bug report:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

Some key dates for the use of the word "activities":

14 April 2008: "Add Activity" button implemented in KDE Plasma
http://websvn.kde.org/?view=re...

29 April 2008: KDE 4.1 Alpha 1 released
http://www.kde.org/announcemen...

29 May 2008: First detailed press reports on KDE's activity concept
http://arstechnica.com/open-so...

29 July 2008: KDE 4.1.0 released
http://www.kde.org/announcemen...

11 October 2008: "Activities menu" concept added to GNOME wiki during the
Boston GNOME Hackfest
http://live.gnome.org/action/d...

The Swedes' alliance, otoh, makes no sense.

Well, applying Occam's razor is tricky when there isn't any transparency on the matter. Without an official version every plausible suggestion will have to be a conspiracy theory.

The two possible versions I can think of would either be that the Swedish government are allied with the US behind the peoples back and secretly does the bidding of the US where they in return are supposed to get protection from Russia. (Sweden is supposed to be neutral so officially being allied would be a big nope.)

The other version would be that CIA was behind the murder of former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme that was critical of the US and also the foreign minister Anna Lindh and that the Swedish government either doesn't dare to go against them or that anyone who was critical of the US simply was murdered.

Either version would explain why Sweden handed over people to the US without evidence during the Iraqi war, why Sweden (Together with the UK) voted against EU investigating the NSA issue, why Sweden was so willing to violate own laws to punish the TPB guys and why Sweden is so hell bent on having those data retention laws.

from the summary

"They just don't want other parts of the system to be wholly dependent on systemd."

That is really the crux of the issue and what distinguishes the systemd dispute from all the other FOSS food fights. The FOSS community never agrees on anything. That is why we have multiple everything: Multiple Kernels (BSD & Linux Kernels, multiple flavors of each) many distributions of each flavor, a host of programming and scripting languages, multiple package management tools (rpm, portage, dpkg) several GUI toolkits, GNOME and KDE desktop environments etc. Wayland is not enough, we must also have Mir. And the licenses. Egads! How many of those do we need?

Despite all the passion and ego involved, disagreement between adherents of particular designs and implementations has never before risen to the level of open revolt that we see over systemd. Why? Because in all these disputes each person can choose what is best for him/herself. Like Python and despise Perl? Use Python. Vice versa? Use Perl. But the usual rule of the user getting to pick what he likes best does not apply with systemd. Lennart Poettering is working to restrict choice to only systemd. His tactic is to make systemd a dependency of major software packages. Here he ison the Gnome dev list pushing a Gnome systemd dependency.

Sometimes an unpopular item is replaced on the buffet; Good software wins out and variety shrinks a bit. That can be a good thing. But the fear is that systmd is going to win not because it is a popular choice but because Poettering has gamed the outcome using dependencies. Something is wrong if you are running systemd because you hate it and you love Gnome. Perhaps the fanatical hatred of Poettering is driven by belief that systemd adoption is advanced in part by his cheating, instead of on the merits of systemd alone. The abusers are abusing not because he has written what they judge to be bad software but because he has violated an unspoken ethic of the FOSS community.

Yes, you are correct. Status quo can't be maintained without development. ConsoleKit worked, and if it was maintained it could still be a working solution, but it has been deprecated for years now.

That is the problem in a nutshell; the non-systemd distros have the sole responsibility for maintaining and developing the necessary code for making a non-systemd distro run.

Oh, and stop getting your "information" about systemd from the tin foil hat systemd hate-blogs, they are so filled of misinformation it is laughable. Gnome, including the lates Gnome 3.14 still supports ConsoleKit: http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitter...

They are not happy about developing against dead software that can't be bugfixed though, and they have said so for years. But the systemd-opponents don't care at all about that, they don't care about helping upstream projects support their ever dwindling numbers of distros, all they seemingly wants to do, is ranting all day long about how bad systemd is.
All rant and no code.

Yep, the corporate backing is a huge win for GNOME. They have a nice bunch of sponsors to make sure that development and quality assurance moves forward in a good pace.

Been running Gnome 3 for the past year or so now and I quite like it, but I agree with you on alt-tab issue. I recommend the extention alternatetab which fixes that to work more simple and sane. Before installing alternatetab I avoided alt-tab all together and just used the super-key to get to the activities screen and switch window.

The feature I miss the most now is the ability to rearrange workspaces. Quite often I find my self constantly switching between say workspace 1 and 4, with some other crap on workspace 2 and 3. Then I would like to drag and drop workspace 4 so it becomes the new workspace 2.

Ah, now I understand what you mean. Yep, that would be useful. In the mean time this extension might help:
https://extensions.gnome.org/e...

Are you sure oft this is true or is the past just always brighter? http://blogs.gnome.org/aday/20...

I left Gnome when they insisted on making the volume controls vertical instead of horizontal (like everyone else).
Which wouldn't have been such a big deal if that also didn't reverse the scroll wheel direction you had to use to change the volume.
If you're out to annoy your users, don't be surprised when you're out of users shortly...

Odd.

If I move the mouse over the little loudspeaker icon I scroll down to reduce the volume, scroll up to increase the volume.

If I click on the icon I see a horizontal slider for the volume.

Aha, but you're right - in gnome control center the scroll wheel works backwards.

Time for a bug report.

Ah, no need.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=703046

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710231

I left Gnome when they insisted on making the volume controls vertical instead of horizontal (like everyone else).
Which wouldn't have been such a big deal if that also didn't reverse the scroll wheel direction you had to use to change the volume.
If you're out to annoy your users, don't be surprised when you're out of users shortly...

Odd.

If I move the mouse over the little loudspeaker icon I scroll down to reduce the volume, scroll up to increase the volume.

If I click on the icon I see a horizontal slider for the volume.

Aha, but you're right - in gnome control center the scroll wheel works backwards.

Time for a bug report.

Ah, no need.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=703046

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710231

No idea what will be included in blivit in the long run, but at least AFAIK, parted lacks the following:
- lvm [1] [2].
- cryptofs [3]
- Complex software RAID setups (usually w/ lvm) [1].
- Network based storage management (iSCSI, etc).

- Gilboa
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/p...
[2] AFAIK gparted *does* support LVM, but it requires the LVM to be inactive while being used. Which more or less makes it useless when trying to management the storage on a production server...
[3] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

Red Hat also has many spin-offs that offer services under their own brand but are partially owned by Red Hat.

Ansible for instance, a competitor to Chef and Puppet mentioned in the summary.

http://jboss.ulitzer.com/node/...

They also have a lot of commitments to shared libraries, such as Gnome.

http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2...

So, I do not understand what the summary is getting at exactly.

Try Gnome Flashback for a proper desktop. Gnome 3 is garbage

Just to contrast with Copyright Assignment, which is also a popular approach, there can be a substantial body of improvement that the upstream developers are unlikely to even be notified about, never mind receive, because requiring Copyright Assigment leaves it dead in the water. This may seem like a bit of paper for a lone developer, but when an institution or external agreements are involved, it takes one person somewhere in the chain, who may not know or care, to say, "Why are we signing away ownership of months of funded work? They want additional protection, you say? Then, by definition, we must be losing it. Anyway, it's easier to veto and ignore upstream submission - this is not our problem, our project's fine."

Signing over to the FSF may be fairly benign, but when you are talking about signing a document for a random upstream company, a CLA can be much more reasonable to explain.

Thorough blog article from Michael Meeks (of GNOME and other things) - https://people.gnome.org/~mich...

Not so quick. CSS can be found outside the web now. GTK and QT for example.

The gnome team begs to differ.

Try again, cupcake:

https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundat...

As a result of these issues, we have only just now finalized our 2014 budget.

What you've got is simple dereliction of duty - the GNOME foundation didn't finalize its 2014 budget until *April* of 2014, the FY starts on October 1 - this means they were operating without a budget for 6 months, and only realized 6 months into it that spending money without a full accounting of what funds you have, and what funds you expect to receive & spend in the next year, is retarded. I'd submit to the GNOME foundation that if they can't operate professionally, perhaps they shouldn't be trying to operate at all.

The problem is not that women are discriminated against, it's that women are given handicap +1s over men and STILL opt for "easier" lines of work than the classic grueling on-call long-hours tech job.

Right, just like black people - they're given handicap +1's, and they STILL opt for easier lines of work like gang-banger, drug dealer, petty thief, and welfare recipient!

Furthermore, what makes you or any of the HR fucks at Google the authority that can tell these women that THEIR CHOICES ARE NOT VALID? Let women exercise their agency and stop trying to shove them all in shitty tech jobs.

Why are you so eager to keep them out by describing the jobs that way, and insisting that they're somehow "smarter" than men for doing so? It's charming that you're arguing against white-knighting in the form of a white-knight argument, but really all you're trying to do is preserve your little boys' club because if you actually had to admit that you're in the place you're at now due to privilege, rather than strictly talent, your carefully crafted self image as a lone-wolf badass who struggled against the world and won his way into a shitty job where he's clearly smarter, better and badder than all the other people around him... well that would just come tumbling down, wouldn't it?

Check your privilege, mate. It's really showing.

If you run the development versions of banshee today (2.9.x), as it's GTK3 in the frontend, you could use the broadway backend to access your player from your browser (without a foreign UI). What we haven't done yet is the streaming part, but that will come eventually. Overall I think it's a better strategy than writing an HTML version of your player.