Miguel de Icaza On GNOME 2.0

Dan93 writes: "Here is an article on what is planned for GNOME 2.0. Pretty interesting stuff such as GNOME VFS, and the cleanup work that is supposed to fix every known architectural problem in GNOME." Also, I heard at LWCE as well from the Eazel folks that by this point in the evolution (ha ha) of GNOME, the nearly-ready-for-prime-time Eazel desktop will be included as well.

Comments

Re:KDE idiots

[MwtrV]

I hate to join in this inevitable flamewar, but I really have to disagree with your view on GNOME and it being the superior offering CURRENTLY. And this is coming from someone who uses GNOME entirely -- I don't even have KDE installed. I have tried a recent incanation of KDE (2.0.)

KDE is offerring a lot, and GNOME is letting users "preview" a lot. There is substantial difference. The only real advantage I see GNOME having is the OpenOffice commitment, but QT ports of OpenOffice are possible, too. The cutting edge GNOME applications thus far has shown us lots of quirky framework, crashing, and nowhere near completeness in its two biggest offerrings, Nautilus and Evolution. Evolution in its current state looks less then alpha. I haven't tried Nautilus and really don't want to. On both sides, it's a shame developers can't get away from the notion that the file manager must contain web browser capability. Don't get me wrong, Konquerer has nice HTML rendering, but it would do better on its own. It seems hypocritical for Miguel to criticize Unix for not being "componentized" enough, and then stand for an application [Nautilus] that does the work of two. I know his arguement was along different lines -- programming ones -- but it is still easy to point out flaw in Nautiuls from a certain perspective with it in mind. I perfer GNOME over KDE for looks, mainly, but I detest the idea of my file manager being a memory hog due to its own inadaquencies and use of library from mozilla while not being the *COMPLETE* embodiment of Mozilla (an even greater memory hog...)

Anyhow, these applications that show the new advancement of GNOME come in June/July while KDE is already a whole level above GNOME. I really don't understand your argument at all. I use software I like, but I don't illogically dismiss the competitor (unless it's Microsoft, which we all are morally obligated to despise.) Lastly, the GNOME foundation. It's a commitment, nothing more at this point. Having read the official HTML release regarding their opinion of the GNOME foundation development, they sound like they maintain a healthy outlook -- may the best desktop win, regardless of names behind it.

Ever be fixed?

[khyron664]

I've read through Miguel's comments and I agree with his reasoning for the most part. GTK+ 2.0 breaking binary and source compatibility is a mess in itself, but I worry that if they "Aim Low" then the problems they see that need to be fixed to obtain the "Blue Sky" will never be done. How many times do developers say "I'll fix that later" and then never do because they run out of time or have to implement too many other features? As a result, problems in the design get worked around and tweaked. It then becomes next to impossible to fix the problems because it would involve and even bigger undertaking than before. I would like to see his ideals met, but I do worry that by not fixing the major problems you see in your product by the next release that those problems will then stay in the product forever. I hope the Gnome team is considering this and realizes this potential danger.

Khyron

Re:What do you mean what a pity??

[gawi]

IMHO it would be a pity if GNOME decided to "aim low" just because of fear of falling behind the competition. This is open source, where we compete on technical merits, not release schedules or the expectations of share holders.

I think that "aiming low" is a strategy that makes a lot of sense. If I were a GNOME developper, I would prefer having a new version of GNOME containing less changes coming out earlier than something blue six months late. Miguel is proposing a plan that will prevent GNOME to be obsolete at some point. He's also making sure that application will be able to keep up with the changes. He's not pushing the blue sky scenario that much. Think of Blue Sky as the ultimate goal and "Aim Low" as the path.

Many projects depend on GNOME. Miguel is well aware of that and understand that the key to success is to be there at the right time. It is a matter of risk. Not to release something for a long period of time increase the risk. Some projects have choose that path and are doing fine (like Mozilla and KDE) but they had a hard-time. GNOME doesn't need that risk.

A schedule for open-source project... I agree that this is something unusual but for something important like GNOME, we cannot afford to miss that. Or at least, we need to define milestones. You're confusing "necessary delays" and "necessary changes". A good plan would make thoses changes appear gradually and safely. Unplanned delays come from bad planning.

ooh boy, now I'm talking like a project manager...

Re:What do you mean what a pity??

[RPoet]

How about thinking in long terms instead? In the case of KDE, there was a long period without releases. But in return, KDE2 is quite mature, has a stable and extensible architecture and is now improving incrementally because of the "revolutionary" changes made between versions 1 and 2. And although W2k was very belated, it is now the most stable Windows release ever. If anything, I think Miguels examples of delayed projects only goes to show that such delays and revolutionary design changes are sometimes *necessary* in order to lay the foundations for future development.

IMHO it would be a pity if GNOME decided to "aim low" just because of fear of falling behind the competition. This is open source, where we compete on technical merits, not release schedules or the expectations of share holders.
--